linux-kernel - [PATCH 05/10] cpuidle: Comment about timers requirements VS idle handler

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: <20230811170049.308866-6-frederic@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:00:44 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 05/10] cpuidle: Comment about timers requirements VS idle handler

Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/idle.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
index 342f58a329f5..d52f6e3e3854 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -258,6 +258,36 @@ static void do_idle(void)
 	while (!need_resched()) {
 		rmb();
 
+		/*
+		 * Interrupts shouldn't be re-enabled from that point on until
+		 * the CPU sleeping instruction is reached. Otherwise an interrupt
+		 * may fire and queue a timer that would be ignored until the CPU
+		 * wakes from the sleeping instruction. And testing need_resched()
+		 * doesn't tell about pending needed timer reprogram.
+		 *
+		 * Several cases to consider:
+		 *
+		 * - SLEEP-UNTIL-PENDING-INTERRUPT based instructions such as
+		 *   "wfi" or "mwait" are fine because they can be entered with
+		 *   interrupt disabled.
+		 *
+		 * - sti;mwait() couple is fine because the interrupts are
+		 *   re-enabled only upon the execution of mwait, leaving no gap
+		 *   in-between.
+		 *
+		 * - ROLLBACK based idle handlers with the sleeping instruction
+		 *   called with interrupts enabled are NOT fine. In this scheme
+		 *   when the interrupt detects it has interrupted an idle handler,
+		 *   it rolls back to its beginning which performs the
+		 *   need_resched() check before re-executing the sleeping
+		 *   instruction. This can leak a pending needed timer reprogram.
+		 *   If such a scheme is really mandatory due to the lack of an
+		 *   appropriate CPU sleeping instruction, then a FAST-FORWARD
+		 *   must instead be applied: when the interrupt detects it has
+		 *   interrupted an idle handler, it must resume to the end of
+		 *   this idle handler so that the generic idle loop is iterated
+		 *   again to reprogram the tick.
+		 */
 		local_irq_disable();
 
 		if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) {
-- 
2.34.1