linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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: <20141121170151.GC30603@home.goodmis.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:01:51 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:25:06AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> * Static percpu areas wouldn't trigger fault lazily.  Note that this
>   is not necessarily because the first percpu chunk which contains the
>   static area is embedded inside the kernel linear mapping.  Depending
>   on the memory layout and boot param, percpu allocator may choose to
>   map the first chunk in vmalloc space too; however, this still works
>   out fine because at that point there are no other page tables and
>   the PUD entries covering the first chunk is faulted in before other
>   pages tables are copied from the kernel one.

That sounds correct.

> 
> * NMI used to be a problem because vmalloc fault handler couldn't
>   safely nest inside NMI handler but this has been fixed since and it
>   should work fine from NMI handlers now.

Right. Of course "should work fine" does not excatly mean "will work fine".


> 
> * Function tracers are problematic because they may end up nesting
>   inside themselves through triggering a vmalloc fault while accessing
>   dynamic percpu memory area.  This may lead to recursive locking and
>   other surprises.

The function tracer infrastructure now has a recursive check that happens
rather early in the call. Unless the registered OPS specifically states
it handles recursions (FTRACE_OPS_FL_RECUSION_SAFE), ftrace will add the
necessary recursion checks. If a registered OPS lies about being recusion
safe, well we can't stop suicide.

Looking at kernel/trace/trace_functions.c: function_trace_call() which is
registered with RECURSION_SAFE, I see that the recursion check is done
before the per_cpu_ptr() call to the dynamically allocated per_cpu data.

It looks OK, but...

Oh! but if we trace the page fault handler, and we fault here too
we just nuked the cr2 register. Not good.

-- Steve


> 
> Are there other cases where the lazy vmalloc faults can break things?
--
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/