linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault

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: <4C40B277.9030408@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:26:47 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault

On 07/16/2010 09:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Use kmalloc and percpu pointers, it's not that onerous.
>>      
> What people don't seem to understand is that WE SHOULD NOT MAKE NMI
> FORCE US TO DO "STRANGE" CODE IN CODE-PATHS THAT HAVE NOTHING
> WHAT-SO-EVER TO DO WITH NMI.
>
> I'm shouting, because this point seems to have been continually
> missed. It was missed in the original patches, and it's been missed in
> the discussions.
>
> Non-NMI code should simply never have to even _think_ about NMI's. Why
> should it? It should just do whatever comes "natural" within its own
> context.
>
>    

But we're not talking about non-NMI code.  The 8k referred to in the 
original patch are buffers used by NMI stack recording.  Module code 
vmalloc_sync_all() is only need by code that is executed during NMI, 
hence must be NMI aware.

> This is why I've been pushing for the "let's just fix NMI" approach.
> Not adding random hacks to other code sequences that have nothing
> what-so-ever to do with NMI.
>    

"fixing NMI" will result in code that is understandable by maybe three 
people after long and hard thinking.  NMI can happen in too many 
semi-defined contexts, so there will be plenty of edge cases.  I'm not 
sure we can ever trust such trickery.

> So don't add NMI code to the page fault code. Not to the debug code,
> or to the module loading code. Don't say "use special allocations
> because the NMI code may care about these particular data structures".
> Because that way lies crap and unmaintainability.
>    

If NMI code can call random hooks and access random data, yes.  But I 
don't think we're at that point yet.


-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/