Re: [PATCH V2] x86/sgx: Fix free page accounting

Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-11-11T03:50:46Z

On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 19:26 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 04:55:14AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 10:51 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > sgx_should_reclaim() would only succeed when sgx_nr_free_pages goes
> > > below the watermark. Once sgx_nr_free_pages becomes corrupted there is
> > > no clear way in which it can correct itself since it is only ever
> > > incremented or decremented.
> >
> > So one scenario would be:
> >
> > 1. CPU A does a READ of sgx_nr_free_pages.
> > 2. CPU B does a READ of sgx_nr_free_pages.
> > 3. CPU A does a STORE of sgx_nr_free_pages.
> > 4. CPU B does a STORE of sgx_nr_free_pages.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > That does corrupt the value, yes, but I don't see anything like this
> > in the commit message, so I'll have to check.
> >
> > I think the commit message is lacking a concurrency scenario, and the
> > current transcripts are a bit useless.
>
> What about this part:
>
>         With sgx_nr_free_pages accessed and modified from a few places
>         it is essential to ensure that these accesses are done safely but
>         this is not the case. sgx_nr_free_pages is read without any
>         protection and updated with inconsistent protection by any one
>         of the spin locks associated with the individual NUMA nodes.
>         For example:
>
>               CPU_A                                 CPU_B
>               -----                                 -----
>          spin_lock(&nodeA->lock);              spin_lock(&nodeB->lock);
>          ...                                   ...
>          sgx_nr_free_pages--;  /* NOT SAFE */  sgx_nr_free_pages--;
>
>          spin_unlock(&nodeA->lock);            spin_unlock(&nodeB->lock);
>
> Maybe you missed the "NOT SAFE" hidden in the middle of
> the picture?
>
> -Tony

For me from that the ordering is not clear. E.g. compare to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

/Jarkko