linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/14] context-tracking: Introduce work deferral infrastructure

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, 06 Jul 2023 12:31:11 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        Chuang Wang <nashuiliang@...il.com>,
        Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Julian Pidancet <julian.pidancet@...cle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/14] context-tracking: Introduce work deferral
 infrastructure

On 06/07/23 00:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 07:12:53PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
>> Note: A previous approach by PeterZ [1] used an extra bit in
>> context_tracking.state to flag the presence of deferred callbacks to
>> execute, and the actual callbacks were stored in a separate atomic
>> variable.
>>
>> This meant that the atomic read of context_tracking.state was sufficient to
>> determine whether there are any deferred callbacks to execute.
>> Unfortunately, it presents a race window. Consider the work setting
>> function as:
>>
>>   preempt_disable();
>>   seq = atomic_read(&ct->seq);
>>   if (__context_tracking_seq_in_user(seq)) {
>>        /* ctrl-dep */
>>        atomic_or(work, &ct->work);
>>        ret = atomic_try_cmpxchg(&ct->seq, &seq, seq|CT_SEQ_WORK);
>>   }
>>   preempt_enable();
>>
>>   return ret;
>>
>> Then the following can happen:
>>
>>   CPUx                                             CPUy
>>                                                   CT_SEQ_WORK \in context_tracking.state
>>     atomic_or(WORK_N, &ct->work);
>>                                                    ct_kernel_enter()
>>                                                      ct_state_inc();
>>     atomic_try_cmpxchg(&ct->seq, &seq, seq|CT_SEQ_WORK);
>>
>> The cmpxchg() would fail, ultimately causing an IPI for WORK_N to be
>> sent. Unfortunately, the work bit would remain set, and it can't be sanely
>> cleared in case another CPU set it concurrently - this would ultimately
>> lead to a double execution of the callback, one as a deferred callback and
>> one in the IPI. As not all IPI callbacks are idempotent, this is
>> undesirable.
>
> So adding another atomic is arguably worse.
>
> The thing is, if the NOHZ_FULL CPU is actually doing context transitions
> (SYSCALLs etc..) then everything is fundamentally racy, there is no
> winning that game, we could find the remote CPU is in-kernel, send an
> IPI, the remote CPU does return-to-user and receives the IPI.
>
> And then the USER is upset... because he got an IPI.
>

Yeah, that part is inevitably racy.

The thing I was especially worried about was the potential double
executions (once in IPI, again in deferred work). It's not /too/ bad as the
only two deferred callbacks I'm introducing here are costly-but-stateless,
but IMO is a bad foundation.

But it seems like we can reuse the existing atomic and squeeze some bits in
there, so let's see how that goes :-)