[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Sleeping in user_access section
On November 23, 2018 1:27:02 AM PST, Julien Thierry <> wrote:
>I made an attempt at implementing the
>user_access_begin()/user_access_end() macros along with the
>get/put_user_unsafe() for arm64 by toggling the status of PAN (more or
>less similar to x86's STAC/CTAC).
>With a small mistake in my patch, we realized that directly calling
>function that could reschedule while in a user_access section could
>lead to:
>- scheduling another task keeping the user_access status enabled
>the task never calling user_access_begin()
>- when re-scheduling the task that was mid user_access section,
>user_access would be disabled and the task would fault on the next
>This is because __switch_to does not alter the user_access status when
>switching from next to prev (at least on arm64 we currently don't, and
>by looking at the x86 code I don't think this is done either).
> From my understanding, this is not an issue when the task in
>user_access mode gets scheduled out/in as a result of an interrupt as
>PAN and EFLAGS.AC get saved/restore on exception entry/exit (at least I
>know it is the case for PAN, I am less sure for the x86 side).
>So, the question is, should __switch_to take care of the user_access
>status when scheduling new tasks? Or should there be a restriction
>scheduling out a task with user_access mode enabled and maybe add a
>warning if we can detect this?
>(Or did we miss something and this is not an issue on x86?)

You should never call a sleeping function from a user_access section. It is intended for very limited regions.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-23 10:58    [W:0.081 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site