Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 10/13] x86/uintr: Introduce user IPI sender syscalls | Date | Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:54:12 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 13:01, Sohil Mehta wrote: > +/* > + * No lock is needed to read the active flag. Writes only happen from > + * r_info->task that owns the UPID. Everyone else would just read this flag. > + * > + * This only provides a static check. The receiver may become inactive right > + * after this check. The primary reason to have this check is to prevent future > + * senders from connecting with this UPID, since the receiver task has already > + * made this UPID inactive.
How is that not racy?
> +static void free_uitt(struct uintr_uitt_ctx *uitt_ctx) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, flags); > + kfree(uitt_ctx->uitt);
Again. Please move kfree() outside of the lock held region. But aside of that what is this lock protecting here?
> + uitt_ctx->uitt = NULL; > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, flags);
If there is concurrency then the other task which is blocked on uitt_lock will operate on uitt_ctx while the same is freed.
Again, this lacks any life time and serialization rules. Just sprinkling locks all over the place does not make it magically correct.
> + kfree(uitt_ctx); > +}
> +static void put_uitt_ref(struct uintr_uitt_ctx *uitt_ctx) > +{ > + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&uitt_ctx->refs)) > + free_uitt(uitt_ctx); > +}
> +static struct uintr_uitt_ctx *get_uitt_ref(struct uintr_uitt_ctx *uitt_ctx) > +{ > + refcount_inc(&uitt_ctx->refs); > + return uitt_ctx; > +} > + > +static inline void mark_uitte_invalid(struct uintr_sender_info *s_info) > +{ > + struct uintr_uitt_entry *uitte; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&s_info->uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, flags); > + uitte = &s_info->uitt_ctx->uitt[s_info->uitt_index]; > + uitte->valid = 0; > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&s_info->uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, flags); > +} > + > static void __clear_vector_from_upid(u64 uvec, struct uintr_upid *upid) > { > clear_bit(uvec, (unsigned long *)&upid->puir); > @@ -175,6 +290,210 @@ static void receiver_clear_uvec(struct callback_head *head) > kfree(r_info); > } > > +static void teardown_uitt(void) > +{ > + struct task_struct *t = current; > + struct fpu *fpu = &t->thread.fpu; > + u64 msr64; > + > + put_uitt_ref(t->thread.ui_send->uitt_ctx); > + kfree(t->thread.ui_send); > + t->thread.ui_send = NULL; > + > + fpregs_lock(); > + > + if (fpregs_state_valid(fpu, smp_processor_id())) { > + /* Modify only the relevant bits of the MISC MSR */ > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_UINTR_MISC, msr64); > + msr64 &= GENMASK_ULL(63, 32);
More magic numbers.
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UINTR_MISC, msr64); > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UINTR_TT, 0ULL);
> +static void __free_uitt_entry(unsigned int entry) > +{ > + struct task_struct *t = current; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + if (entry >= UINTR_MAX_UITT_NR) > + return; > + > + if (!is_uintr_sender(t)) > + return; > + > + pr_debug("send: Freeing UITTE entry %d for task=%d\n", entry, t->pid); > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&t->thread.ui_send->uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, flags); > + memset(&t->thread.ui_send->uitt_ctx->uitt[entry], 0, > + sizeof(struct uintr_uitt_entry)); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->thread.ui_send->uitt_ctx->uitt_lock, > flags);
What's the spinlock protecting here?
> + clear_bit(entry, (unsigned long *)t->thread.ui_send->uitt_mask); > + > + if (is_uitt_empty(t)) { > + pr_debug("send: UITT mask is empty. Dereference and teardown UITT\n"); > + teardown_uitt(); > + } > +}
> +void do_uintr_unregister_sender(struct uintr_receiver_info *r_info, > + struct uintr_sender_info *s_info) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + /* > + * To make sure any new senduipi result in a #GP fault. > + * The task work might take non-zero time to kick the process out.
-ENOPARSE
> + */ > + mark_uitte_invalid(s_info); > + > + pr_debug("send: Adding Free UITTE %d task work for task=%d\n", > + s_info->uitt_index, s_info->task->pid); > + > + init_task_work(&s_info->twork, sender_free_uitte); > + ret = task_work_add(s_info->task, &s_info->twork, true); > + if (ret) { > + /* > + * Dereferencing the UITT and UPID here since the task has > + * exited. > + */ > + pr_debug("send: Free UITTE %d task=%d has already exited\n", > + s_info->uitt_index, s_info->task->pid); > + put_upid_ref(s_info->r_upid_ctx); > + put_uitt_ref(s_info->uitt_ctx); > + put_task_struct(s_info->task); > + kfree(s_info); > + return; > + } > +} > + > +int do_uintr_register_sender(struct uintr_receiver_info *r_info, > + struct uintr_sender_info *s_info) > +{ > + struct uintr_uitt_entry *uitte = NULL; > + struct uintr_sender *ui_send; > + struct task_struct *t = current; > + unsigned long flags; > + int entry; > + int ret; > + > + /* > + * Only a static check. Receiver could exit anytime after this check. > + * This check only prevents connections using uintr_fd after the > + * receiver has already exited/unregistered. > + */ > + if (!uintr_is_receiver_active(r_info)) > + return -ESHUTDOWN;
How is this safe against a concurrent unregister/exit operation?
Thanks,
tglx
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |