linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups

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]

Message-ID: <20220121114758.GF20638@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:47:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
        posk@...gle.com, avagin@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        tdelisle@...terloo.ca, mark.rutland@....com, posk@...k.io
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 04:55:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(umcg_wait, u32, flags, u64, timo)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +	struct umcg_task __user *self = READ_ONCE(tsk->umcg_task);
> +	bool worker = tsk->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!self || flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (worker) {
> +		tsk->flags &= ~PF_UMCG_WORKER;
> +		if (timo)
> +			return -ERANGE;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* see umcg_sys_{enter,exit}() syscall exceptions */
> +	ret = umcg_pin_pages();
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto unblock;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Clear UMCG_TF_COND_WAIT *and* check state == RUNNABLE.
> +	 */
> +	ret = umcg_update_state(tsk, self, UMCG_TASK_RUNNABLE, UMCG_TASK_RUNNABLE);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto unpin;
> +
> +	ret = umcg_wake_next(tsk, self);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto unpin;
> +
> +	if (worker) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If this fails it is possible ::next_tid is already running
> +		 * while this task is not going to block. This violates our
> +		 * constraints.
> +		 *
> +		 * That said, pretty much the only way to make this fail is by
> +		 * force munmap()'ing things. In which case one is most welcome
> +		 * to the pieces.
> +		 */
> +		ret = umcg_enqueue_and_wake(tsk);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto unpin;
> +	}
> +
> +	umcg_unpin_pages();
> +
> +	ret = umcg_wait(timo);
> +	switch (ret) {
> +	case 0:		/* all done */
> +	case -EINTR:	/* umcg_notify_resume() will continue the wait */

So I was playing with the whole worker timeout thing last night and
realized this is broken. If we get a signal while we have a timeout, the
timeout gets lost.

I think the easiest solution is to have umcg_notify_resume() also resume
the timeout, but the first pass of that was yuck, so I need to try
again.

Related, by moving the whole enqueue-and-wake thing into the timeout, we
get more 'fun' failure cases :-(

Oh well..

> +		ret = 0;
> +		break;
> +
> +	default:
> +		goto unblock;
> +	}
> +out:
> +	if (worker)
> +		tsk->flags |= PF_UMCG_WORKER;
> +	return ret;
> +
> +unpin:
> +	umcg_unpin_pages();
> +unblock:
> +	umcg_update_state(tsk, self, UMCG_TASK_RUNNABLE, UMCG_TASK_RUNNING);
> +	goto out;
> +}