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, 6 Jul 2023 13:40:14 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 12:30:46PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> +		ret = atomic_try_cmpxchg(&ct->work, &old_work, old_work | work);
> >> +
> >> +	preempt_enable();
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> > [...]
> >> @@ -100,14 +158,19 @@ static noinstr void ct_kernel_exit_state(int offset)
> >>   */
> >>  static noinstr void ct_kernel_enter_state(int offset)
> >>  {
> >> +	struct context_tracking *ct = this_cpu_ptr(&context_tracking);
> >>      int seq;
> >> +	unsigned int work;
> >>
> >> +	work = ct_work_fetch(ct);
> >
> > So this adds another fully ordered operation on user <-> kernel transition.
> > How many such IPIs can we expect?
> >
> 
> Despite having spent quite a lot of time on that question, I think I still
> only have a hunch.
> 
> Poking around RHEL systems, I'd say 99% of the problematic IPIs are
> instruction patching and TLB flushes.
> 
> Staring at the code, there's quite a lot of smp_calls for which it's hard
> to say whether the target CPUs can actually be isolated or not (e.g. the
> CPU comes from a cpumask shoved in a struct that was built using data from
> another struct of uncertain origins), but then again some of them don't
> need to hook into context_tracking.
> 
> Long story short: I /think/ we can consider that number to be fairly small,
> but there could be more lurking in the shadows.

I guess it will still be time to reconsider the design if we ever reach such size.

> 
> > If this is just about a dozen, can we stuff them in the state like in the
> > following? We can potentially add more of them especially on 64 bits we could
> > afford 30 different works, this is just shrinking the RCU extended quiescent
> > state counter space. Worst case that can happen is that RCU misses 65535
> > idle/user <-> kernel transitions and delays a grace period...
> >
> 
> I'm trying to grok how this impacts RCU, IIUC most of RCU mostly cares about the
> even/odd-ness of the thing, and rcu_gp_fqs() cares about the actual value
> but only to check if it has changed over time (rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since()
> only does a !=).
> 
> I'm rephrasing here to make sure I get it - is it then that the worst case
> here is 2^(dynticks_counter_size) transitions happen between saving the
> dynticks snapshot and checking it again, so RCU waits some more?

That's my understanding as well but I have to defer on Paul to make sure I'm
not overlooking something.

Thanks.