netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids

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:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:16:41 +0000
From:   Julien Grall <julien@....org>
To:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Paul Durrant <paul@....org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids



On 08/02/2021 12:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>>
>> On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> ... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is 
>>>> to re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent 
>>>> the wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).
>>>
>>> The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
>>> involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would help.
>>
>> Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:
>>
>> if ( irq in progress )
>> {
>>    set IRQS_PENDING
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> do
>> {
>>    clear IRQS_PENDING
>>    handle_irq()
>> } while (IRQS_PENDING is set)
>>
>> IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:
>>
>> if ( irq in progress )
>>    return;
>>
>> handle_irq()
>>
>> The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them. So 
>> it would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.
> 
> Sure? Isn't "irq in progress" being reset way before our "lateeoi" is
> issued, thus having the same problem again? 

Sorry I can't parse this.

And I think we want to keep
> the lateeoi behavior in order to be able to control event storms.

I didn't (yet) suggest to remove lateeoi. I only suggest to use a 
different workflow to handle the race with vCPU affinity.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall