On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:36:25AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:11:08PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > @@ -840,8 +861,10 @@ el0_svc: > > > mov wsc_nr, #__NR_syscalls > > > el0_svc_naked: // compat entry point > > > stp x0, xscno, [sp, #S_ORIG_X0] // save the original x0 and > > > syscall number > > > + isb_if_eqs > > > enable_dbg_and_irq > > > - ct_user_exit 1 > > > + ct_user_exit > > > > I don't think this is safe. here we issue the ISB *before* exiting a > > quiesecent state, so I think we can race with another CPU that calls > > kick_all_active_cpus_sync, e.g. > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > > > ISB > > patch_some_text() > > kick_all_active_cpus_sync() > > ct_user_exit > > > > // not synchronized! > > use_of_patched_text() > > > > ... and therefore the ISB has no effect, which could be disasterous. > > > > I believe we need the ISB *after* we transition into a non-quiescent > > state, so that we can't possibly miss a context synchronization event. > > I decided to put isb() in entry because there's a chance that there will > be patched code prior to exiting a quiescent state.
If we do patch entry text, then I think we have no option but to use kick_all_active_cpus_sync(), or we risk races similar to the above. > But after some headscratching, I think it's safe. I'll do like you > suggested here. Sounds good. Thanks, Mark.
