lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs
> > > We're piece-wise enabling rseq across architectures anyway, and when the
> > > relevant maintains do this, they can have a look at their
> > > {get,put}_user() implementations and fix them.
> > >
> > > If you rely on get_user(u64) working, that means microblaze is already
> > > broken, but I suppose it already was, since their rseq enablement patch
> > > is extremely dodgy. Michal?
> >
> > s390 uses the mvcos instruction to implement get_user(). That instruction
> > is not defined to be atomic, but may copy bytes piecemeal.. I had the
> > impression that the rseq fields are supposed to be updated within the
> > context of a single thread (user + kernel space).
> >
> > However if another user space thread is allowed to do this as well, then
> > the get_user() approach won't fly on s390.
> >
> > That leaves the question: does it even make sense for a thread to update
> > the rseq structure of a different thread?
>
> The problem is interrupts; we need interrupts on the CPU doing the store
> to observe either the old or the new value, not a mix.
>
> If mvcos does not guarantee that, we're having problems. Is there a
> reason get_user() cannot use a 'regular' load?

Well, that's single instruction semantics. This is something we actually
can guarantee, since the mvcos instruction itself won't be interrupted and
copies all 1/2/4/8 bytes in a row.

So we are talking about that single instructions are required and not
atomic accesses?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-03 10:57    [W:0.067 / U:6.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site