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  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:   Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:24:41 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     John Keeping <john@...anate.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Don't call _irqoff() with hardirqs enabled

On 10.10.2020 17:22, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 15:08:15 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 09.10.2020 18:06, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 09.10.2020 17:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
>>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:54:06 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:  
>>>>> I'm thinking about a __napi_schedule version that disables hard irq's
>>>>> conditionally, based on variable force_irqthreads, exported by the irq
>>>>> subsystem. This would allow to behave correctly with threadirqs set,
>>>>> whilst not loosing the _irqoff benefit with threadirqs unset.
>>>>> Let me come up with a proposal.  
>>>>
>>>> I think you'd need to make napi_schedule_irqoff() behave like that,
>>>> right?  Are there any uses of napi_schedule_irqoff() that are disabling
>>>> irqs and not just running from an irq handler?
>>>>  
>>> Right, the best approach depends on the answer to the latter question.
>>> I didn't check this yet, therefore I described the least intrusive approach.
>>>   
>>
>> With some help from coccinelle I identified the following functions that
>> call napi_schedule_irqoff() or __napi_schedule_irqoff() and do not run
>> from an irq handler (at least not at the first glance).
>>
>> dpaa2_caam_fqdan_cb
>> qede_simd_fp_handler
>> mlx4_en_rx_irq
>> mlx4_en_tx_irq
> 
> Don't know the others but FWIW the mlx4 ones run from an IRQ handler,
> AFAICT:
> 
> static irqreturn_t mlx4_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_ptr)
> static irqreturn_t mlx4_msi_x_interrupt(int irq, void *eq_ptr)
>   mlx4_eq_int()
>     mlx4_cq_completion
>       cq->comp()
> 
>> qeth_qdio_poll
>> netvsc_channel_cb
>> napi_watchdog
> 
> This one runs from a hrtimer, which I believe will be a hard irq
> context on anything but RT. I could be wrong.
> 

A similar discussion can be found e.g. here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20191126222013.1904785-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/
However I don't see any actual outcome.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists