linux-kernel - Re: NMI between switch_mm and switch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <19062.48341.397129.599184@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:32:53 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NMI between switch_mm and switch_to

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 14:49 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> > > Ben H. suggested there might be a problem if we get a PMU 
> > > interrupt and try to do a stack trace of userspace in the 
> > > interval between when we call switch_mm() from 
> > > sched.c:context_switch() and when we call switch_to().  If we 
> > > get an NMI in that interval and do a stack trace of userspace, 
> > > we'll see the registers of the old task but when we peek at user 
> > > addresses we'll see the memory image for the new task, so the 
> > > stack trace we get will be completely bogus.
> > > 
> > > Is this in fact also a problem on x86, or is there some subtle 
> > > reason why it can't happen there?
> > 
> > I can't spot one, maybe Ingo can when he's back :-)
> > 
> > So I think this is very good spotting from Ben.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> > We could use preempt notifiers (or put in our own hooks) to 
> > disable callchains during the context switch I suppose.
> 
> I think we should only disable user call-chains i think - the 
> in-kernel call-chain is still reliable.
> 
> Also, i think we dont need preempt notifiers, we can use a simple 
> check like this:
> 
> 	if (current->mm &&
> 		cpu_isset(smp_processor_id(), &current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) {

On x86, do you clear the current processor's bit in cpu_vm_mask when
you switch the MMU away from a task?  We don't on powerpc, which would
render the above test incorrect.  (But then we don't actually have the
problem on powerpc since interrupts get hard-disabled in switch_mm and
stay hard-disabled until they get soft-enabled.)

Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/