linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/13] x86/uintr: Introduce uintr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 20:30:27 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Sohil Mehta" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Christian Brauner" <christian@...uner.io>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Shuah Khan" <shuah@...nel.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Jacob Pan" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Gayatri Kammela" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
        "Zeng Guang" <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Randy E Witt" <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Ramesh Thomas" <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        "Linux API" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/13] x86/uintr: Introduce uintr_wait() syscall

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Add a new system call to allow applications to block in the kernel and
> wait for user interrupts.
>

...

>
> When the application makes this syscall the notification vector is
> switched to a new kernel vector. Any new SENDUIPI will invoke the kernel
> interrupt which is then used to wake up the process.

Any new SENDUIPI that happens to hit the target CPU's ucode at a time when the kernel vector is enabled will deliver the interrupt.  Any new SENDUIPI that happens to hit the target CPU's ucode at a time when a different UIPI-using task is running will *not* deliver the interrupt, unless I'm missing some magic.  Which means that wakeups will be missed, which I think makes this whole idea a nonstarter.

Am I missing something?