netdev - Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable

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:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:41:50 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, anthony@...emonkey.ws, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:08:19PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >I don't know that you need an xchg there. If you're still on the same
> >CPU, it should all be nice and causal even across an interrupt handler.
> >So it could be:
> >
> >   pda.intr_mask = 0; /* intr_pending can't get set after this */
> >  
> 
> Why not?  Oh, I see.  intr_mask is inverted form of EFLAGS_IF.

It's not even that. There are two things that can happen:

case 1:

  intr_mask = 1;
            <interrupt occurs and is deferred>
  intr_mask = 0;
  /* intr_pending is already set and CLI is in effect */
  if(intr_pending)

case 2:

  intr_mask = 1;
  intr_mask = 0;
            <interrupt occurs and is processed>
  /* intr_pending remains cleared */
  if(intr_pending)

As this is all about local interrupts, it's all on a single CPU and
out of order issues aren't visible..
 
> >(This would actually need a C barrier, but I'll ignore that as this'd
> >end up being asm...)

..unless the compiler is doing the reordering, of course.

> >But other interesting things could happen. If we never did a real CLI
> >and we get preempted and switched to another CPU between clearing
> >intr_mask and checking intr_pending, we get a little confused. 
> 
> I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts 
> disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set.  In which case, they would 
> bypass all work and we could never get preempted.

I was actually worrying about the case where the interrupt came in
"late". But I don't think it's a problem there either.

> I don't think leaving 
> hardware interrupts disabled for such a long time is good though.

It can only be worse than the current situation by the amount of time
it takes to defer an interrupt once. On average, it'll be a lot
better as most critical sections are -tiny-.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html