linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] irqchip/GICv3: let gic_handle

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:27:11 +0800
From:   Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yuichi Ito <ito-yuichi@...itsu.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] irqchip/GICv3: let gic_handle_irq() utilize
 irqentry on arm64

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 08:20:35AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 04:10:11 +0100,
> Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:10:53AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:36PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > The call to rcu_irq_enter() originated from gic_handle_irq() is
> > > > redundant now, since arm64 has enter_from_kernel_mode() akin to
> > > > irqenter_entry(), which has already called rcu_irq_enter().
> > > 
> > > Here I think you're referring to the call in handle_domain_irq(), but
> > > that isn't clear from the commit message.
> > > 
> > Yes, and I will make it clear in V2.
> > 
> > > > Based on code analysis, the redundant can raise some mistake, e.g.
> > > > rcu_data->dynticks_nmi_nesting inc 2, which causes
> > > > rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() unexpected.
> > > > 
> > > > So eliminate the call to irq_enter() in handle_domain_irq(). And
> > > > accordingly supplementing irq_enter_rcu().
> > > 
> > > We support many more irqchips on arm64, and GICv3 can be used on regular
> > > 32-bit arm, so this isn't right. Moving the irq_enter_rcu() call
> > > into the GICv3 driver specifically breaks other drivers on arm64 by
> > > removing the call, and breaks the GICv3 driver on arm by adding a
> > > duplicate call.
> > > 
> > Oops. I forgot to protect the code in GICv3 with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_IRQENTRY
> > 
> > > It looks like this should live in do_interrupt_handler() in
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c, e.g.
> > > 
> > > | static void do_interrupt_handler(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > > | 				 void (*handler)(struct pt_regs *)) 
> > > | {
> > > | 	irq_enter_rcu();
> > > | 	if (on_thread_stack())
> > > | 		call_on_irq_stack(regs, handler);
> > > | 	else
> > > | 		handler(regs);
> > > | 	irq_exit_rcu();
> > > | }
> > > 
> > > ... unless there's some problem with that?
> > > 
> > Yeah, do_interrupt_handler() is a more suitable place. But to resolve
> > the performance regression of rescheduling IPI [1], it is badly demanded to
> > distinguish irqnr before calling irq_enter_rcu() (please see 5/5 and [2]
> > for the context). So it is a compromise to host the code in GICv3.
> > 
> > Any good idea?
> 
> There is no way we are going to single out a particular interrupt
> controller. As for the "regression", we'll have to look at the numbers
> once we have fixed the whole infrastructure.
> 
But I just realize that at present, gic_handle_nmi() sits behind
gic_handle_irq().  So it will make an mistaken for accounting of normal
interrupt if calling irq_enter_rcu() in do_interrupt_handler().

And going through drivers/irqchip/irq-chip-gic*, I think there are only
two files should be handled: irq-gic.c and irq-gic-v3.c.

Thanks,

	Pingfan