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: <20220124100306.GO20638@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:03:06 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     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, 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, posk@...k.io
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 04:57:29PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > @@ -221,8 +227,11 @@ static inline void local_irq_disable_exi
> >   */
> >  static inline void irqentry_irq_enable(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  {
> > -	if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs))
> > +	if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs)) {
> >  		local_irq_enable();
> > +		if (user_mode(regs) && (current->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER))
> > +			umcg_sys_enter(regs, -1);
> > +	}
> >  }
> 
> Perhaps it would make sense to have separate umcg_sys_enter(regs) and
> umcg_sys_enter_syscall(regs, syscallno)? Even if the former is just a wrapper,
> to make the entry/exit bits clearly correspond for all the !syscall cases?

Can do I suppose.

> Also, is the syscall case meant to nest within this, or syscall entry paths not
> supposed to call irqentry_irq_enable() ?

No nesting, syscall_ vs irqentry_. And you can't have a syscall and an
exception both be from user at the same time :-)

> >  /**
> > @@ -232,8 +241,11 @@ static inline void irqentry_irq_enable(s
> >   */
> >  static inline void irqentry_irq_disable(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  {
> > -	if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs))
> > +	if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs)) {
> > +		if (user_mode(regs) && (current->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER))
> > +			umcg_sys_exit(regs);
> >  		local_irq_disable();
> > +	}
> >  }
> 
> Do the umcg_sys_{enter,exit}() calls need to happen with IRQs unmasked?

Yes; both can end up blocking.

> * If not (and this nests): for arm64 these can live in our
>   enter_from_user_mode() and exit_to_user_mode() helpers.
> 
> * If so (or this doesn't nest): for arm64 we'd need to rework our
>   local_daif_{inherit,restore,mask}() calls to handle this, though I've been
>   meaning to do that anyway to handle pseudo-NMI better.
> 
> Either way, it looks like we'd need helpers along the lines of:
> 
> | static __always_inline void umcg_enter_from_user(struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | 	if (current->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER)
> | 		umcg_sys_enter(regs, -1);
> | }
> | 
> | static __always_inline void umcg_exit_to_user(struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | 	if (current->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER)
> | 		umcg_sys_exit(regs);
> | }

Would something like:

#ifndef arch_irqentry_irq_enter
static __always_inline bool arch_irqentry_irq_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
	if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs)) {
		local_irq_enable();
		return true;
	}
	return false;
}
#endif

static __always_inline void irqentry_irq_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
	if (arch_irqentry_irq_inherit(regs)) {
		if (user_mode(regs) && (current->flags & PF_UMCG_WORKER))
			umcg_sys_enter(regs, -1);
	}
}

Work? Then arm64 can do:

static __always_inline bool arch_irqentry_irq_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
	local_daif_inherit();
	return interrupts_enabled(regs);
}

or somesuch...