linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond

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: <36BA01F0-F2B7-4290-AB23-E61989262AB3@fb.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 May 2022 19:04:47 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...com>
CC:     "live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "joe.lawrence@...hat.com" <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond_resched



> On May 7, 2022, at 11:26 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 10:46 -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>> Busy kernel threads may block the transition of livepatch. Call
>> klp_try_switch_task from __cond_resched to make the transition
>> easier.
>> 
> That seems like a useful idea given what we're seeing on
> some systems, but I do have a nitpick with your patch :)
> 
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -6990,6 +6990,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>>  #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC)
>>  int __sched __cond_resched(void)
>>  {
>> +       if (unlikely(klp_patch_pending(current)))
>> +               klp_try_switch_task(current);
>> +
>>         if (should_resched(0)) {
>>                 preempt_schedule_common();
>>                 return 1;
> 
> While should_resched and klp_patch_pending check the same
> cache line (task->flags), now there are two separate
> conditionals on this.
> 
> Would it make sense to fold the tests for TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> and TIF_PATCH_PENDING int should_resched(), and then re-do
> the test for TIF_PATCH_PENDING only if should_resched()
> returns true?

x86 has a different version of should_resched(), so I am not
quite sure what’s the right way o modify shhould_resched(). 
OTOH, we can probably see should_resched() as-is and just 
move klp_patch_pending, like

int __sched __cond_resched(void)
{
        if (should_resched(0)) {
                if (unlikely(klp_patch_pending(current)))
                        klp_try_switch_task(current);

                preempt_schedule_common();
                return 1;
        }
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
        rcu_all_qs();
#endif
        return 0;
}

Given live patch user space usually waits for many seconds, 
I guess this should work?

Thanks,
Song