linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Barf when faults happen in NMI

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: <20100927211401.GA20402@Krystal>
Date:	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:14:01 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Barf when faults happen in NMI

* Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@...il.com) wrote:
> In x86, faults exit by executing the iret instruction, which then
> reenables NMIs if we faulted in NMI context. Then if a fault
> happens in NMI, another NMI can nest after the fault exits.
> 
> But we don't yet support nested NMIs because we have only one NMI
> stack. To prevent that, trigger a bug when a fault happens in NMI
> context.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
> 
> I first thought about putting it in the vmalloc fault path only.
> But then I saw more occasions for the kernel to fault (kmemcheck
> or so), and so I thought it should be better put in the all in one
> path. But I suspect you won't like that conditional in the big
> x86 fault path.
> 
> 
>  arch/x86/mm/fault.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index 4c4508e..80c997e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -955,6 +955,8 @@ do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
>  	int write;
>  	int fault;
>  
> +	BUG_ON(in_nmi());

Alternative idea: we could put the test at the beginning of the NMI handler, so
if a NMI handler nests over a processor already "in_nmi", then we bug. I agree
that this will trigger less easily than bugging in the fault handler (because we
need to hit the actual nmi-coming-in-because-iret-reenabled-them-too-early
scenario, but it's far less intrusive.

Thoughts ?

Mathieu

> +
>  	tsk = current;
>  	mm = tsk->mm;
>  
> -- 
> 1.6.2.3
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/