linux-kernel - Re: [patch v8 02/10] add prctl task isolation prctl docs and samples

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]

Message-ID: <Ye7roobHDqVogulr@fuller.cnet>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:10:42 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nitesh Lal <nilal@...hat.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alex Belits <abelits@...its.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v8 02/10] add prctl task isolation prctl docs and samples

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 01:03:08AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 08:30:01AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 12:49:56AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:09:08PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > Add documentation and userspace sample code for prctl
> > > > task isolation interface.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot! Time for me to look at the rest of the series.
> > > 
> > > Would be nice to have Thomas's opinion as well at least on
> > > the interface (this patch).
> > 
> > Yes. AFAIAW most of his earlier comments on what the 
> > interface should look like have been addressed (or at
> > least i've tried to)... including the ability for
> > the system admin to configure the isolation options.
> > 
> > The one thing missing is to attempt to enter nohz_full
> > on activation (which Christoph asked for).
> > 
> > Christoph, have a question on that. At
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/12/14/346, you wrote:
> > 
> > "Applications running would ideally have no performance penalty and there
> > is no  issue with kernel activity unless the application is in its special
> > low latency loop. NOHZ is currently only activated after spinning in that
> > loop for 2 seconds or so. Would be best to be able to trigger that
> > manually somehow."
> > 
> > So was thinking of something similar to what the full task isolation
> > patchset does (with the behavior of returning an error as option...):
> > 
> > +int try_stop_full_tick(void)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +	struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
> > +
> > +	/* For an unstable clock, we should return a permanent error code. */
> > +	if (atomic_read(&tick_dep_mask) & TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (!can_stop_full_tick(cpu, ts))
> > +		return -EAGAIN;
> > +
> > +	tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(ts, cpu);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > 
> > Is that sufficient? (note it might still be possible 
> > for a failure to enter nohz_full due to a number of 
> > reasons), see tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick.
> 
> Well, I guess we can simply make tick_nohz_full_update_tick() an API, then
> it could be a QUIESCE feature.
> 
> But keep in mind we may not only fail to enter into nohz_full mode, we
> may also enter it but, instead of completely stopping the tick, it can
> be delayed to some future if there is still a timer callback queued somewhere.
> 
> Make sure you test "ts->next_tick == KTIME_MAX" after stopping the tick.
> 
> This raise the question: what do we do if a quiescing fails? At least if it's a
> oneshot, we can return an -EBUSY from the prctl() but otherwise, subsequent kernel
> entry/exit are a problem.

Well, maybe two modes can be specified for the NOHZ_FULL task isolation
feature. On activation of task isolation:

	- Hint (default). Attempt to enter nohz_full mode,
	  continue if unable to do so.

	- Mandatory. Return an error if unable to enter nohz_full mode
	  (tracing required to determine actual reason. is that OK?)

static bool check_tick_dependency(atomic_t *dep)
{
        int val = atomic_read(dep);

        if (val & TICK_DEP_MASK_POSIX_TIMER) {
                trace_tick_stop(0, TICK_DEP_MASK_POSIX_TIMER);
                return true;
        }

        if (val & TICK_DEP_MASK_PERF_EVENTS) {
                trace_tick_stop(0, TICK_DEP_MASK_PERF_EVENTS);
                return true;
        }

        if (val & TICK_DEP_MASK_SCHED) {
                trace_tick_stop(0, TICK_DEP_MASK_SCHED);
                return true;
        }

        if (val & TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE) {
                trace_tick_stop(0, TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE);
                return true;
        }

        if (val & TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU) {
                trace_tick_stop(0, TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU);
                return true;
        }

        return false;
}

One thing that can be done on the handlers is to execute any pending irq_work, which
would fix:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/18/1174

How about that ?