linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 4/8] x86/smp: Acquire stopping

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:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:02:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 4/8] x86/smp: Acquire stopping_cpu unconditionally

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:17:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> There is no reason to acquire the stopping_cpu atomic_t only when there is
> more than one online CPU.
> 
> Make it unconditional to prepare for fixing the kexec() problem when there
> are present but "offline" CPUs which play dead in mwait_play_dead().
> 
> They need to be brought out of mwait before kexec() as kexec() can
> overwrite text, pagetables, stacks and the monitored cacheline of the
> original kernel. The latter causes mwait to resume execution which
> obviously causes havoc on the kexec kernel which results usually in triple
> faults.
> 
> Move the acquire out of the num_online_cpus() > 1 condition so the upcoming
> 'kick mwait' fixup is properly protected.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/smp.c |   14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,12 @@ static void native_stop_other_cpus(int w
>  	if (reboot_force)
>  		return;
>  
> +	/* Only proceed if this is the first CPU to reach this code */
> +	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&stopping_cpu, -1, safe_smp_processor_id()) != -1)
> +		return;
> +
> +	atomic_set(&stop_cpus_count, num_online_cpus() - 1);
> +

	if (({ int old = -1; !atomic_try_cmpxchg(&stopping_cpu, &old, safe_smp_processor_id()); }))
		return;

Doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it :/

Also, I don't think anybody cares about performance at this point, so
ignore I wrote this email.

/me presses send anyway.