lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Subjectsingle_task_running() vs. preemption warnings (was Re: [PATCH] kvm: fix preemption warnings in kvm_vcpu_block)
From
Date


On 17/09/2015 18:27, Dominik Dingel wrote:
> + preempt_disable();
> + solo = single_task_running();
> + preempt_enable();
> +
> cur = ktime_get();
> - } while (single_task_running() && ktime_before(cur, stop));

That's the obvious way to fix it, but the TOCTTOU problem (which was in
the buggy code too) is obvious too. :) And the only other user of
single_task_running() in drivers/crypto/mcryptd.c has the same issue.

In fact, because of the way the function is used ("maybe I can do a
little bit of work before going to sleep") it will likely be called many
times in a loop. This in turn means that:

- any wrong result due to a concurrent process migration would be
rectified very soon

- preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() can actually be just as expensive
or more expensive than single_task_running() itself.

Therefore, I wonder if single_task_running() should just use
raw_smp_processor_id(). At least the TOCTTOU issue can be clearly
documented in the function comment, instead of being hidden behind each
of the callers.

Thanks,

Paolo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-17 19:01    [W:0.062 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site