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: Fri, 24 May 2024 19:16:19 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@...radead.org>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Chris von
 Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sched/isolation: tick_take_do_timer_from_boot() calls
 smp_call_function_single() with irqs disabled

On Fri, May 24 2024 at 17:20, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> >> Race with tick_nohz_stop_tick() on boot CPU which can set
>> >> tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE? Is it really bad?
>> 
>> This can't happen.
>
> Actually... The boot CPU is nohz_full and nothing prevents it
> from stopping its tick once IRQs are enabled and before calling
> tick_nohz_idle_enter(). When that happens, tick_nohz_full_update_tick()
> doesn't go through can_stop_idle_tick() and therefore doesn't check if it
> is the timekeeper. And then it goes through tick_nohz_stop_tick() which
> can set tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE.

OMG...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ