netdev - Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

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:	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:33:58 -0800
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

On 02/27/2016 03:04 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:29:39 -0800
> 
>> Not really. softirq raised from interrupt context will always execute
>> on this cpu and not in ksoftirqd, unless load forces softirq loop abort.
> 
> That guarantee never was specified.

??

Neither is running network socket servers at normal priority as if they're
higher priority than softirq.

> Or are you saying that by design, on a system under load, your UART
> will not function properly?
> 
> Surely you don't mean that.

No, that's not what I mean.

What I mean is that bypassing the entire SOFTIRQ priority so that
sshd can process one network packet makes a mockery of the point of softirq.

This hack to workaround NET_RX looping over-and-over-and-over affects every
subsystem, not just one uart.

HI, TIMER, BLOCK; all of these are skipped: that's straight-up, a bug.

Regards,
Peter Hurley