mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
To: Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Subject: Sleeping in user_access section
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:27:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3e881ee6-0ff6-b8b6-0633-3d4a7743411d@arm.com> (raw)

Hi,

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 despite 
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 
get/put_user_unsafe.


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 about 
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?)

Thanks,

-- 
Julien Thierry

             reply	other threads:[~2018-11-23  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-23  9:27 Julien Thierry [this message]
2018-11-23  9:57 ` hpa
2018-11-23 10:16   ` Julien Thierry
2018-11-23 10:50   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-23 11:57     ` Julien Thierry
2018-11-23 13:04       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-27 19:05       ` H. Peter Anvin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3e881ee6-0ff6-b8b6-0633-3d4a7743411d@arm.com \
    --to=julien.thierry@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®