On 13/02/2019 14:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:00:26PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> This; how is getting preempted fundamentally different from scheduling
>>> ourselves?
>>
>> The difference is because getting preempted in the sequence above is
>> triggered off the back of an interrupt. On arm64, and I think also on x86,
>> the user access state (SMAP or PAN) is saved and restored across exceptions
>> but not across context switch. Consequently, taking an irq in a
>> user_access_{begin,end} section and then scheduling is fine, but calling
>> schedule directly within such a section is not.
>
> So how's this then:
>
> if (user_access_begin()) {
>
> preempt_disable();
>
> <IRQ>
> set_need_resched();
> </IRQ no preempt>
>
> preempt_enable()
> __schedule();
>
> user_access_end();
> }
>
> That _should_ work just fine but explodes with the proposed nonsense.
AFAICT, This does not work properly because when you schedule out this
task, you won't be saving the EFLAGS.AF/PSTATE.PAN bit on the stack, and
next time you schedule the task back in, it might no longer have the
correct flag value (so an unsafe_get/put_user() will fail even though
you haven't reached user_access_end()).
One solution is to deal with this in task switching code, but so far
I've been told that calling schedule() in such a context is not expected
to be supported.
Cheers,
--
Julien Thierry
