linux-kernel - Re: [V5 PATCH 2/4] panic/x86: Allow cpus to save registers even if they are looping in NMI context

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: <20151124201641.GD21613@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:16:41 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 2/4] panic/x86: Allow cpus to save registers even if
 they are looping in NMI context

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:37:00PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:48:53AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 
> > > +	 */
> > > +	while (!raw_spin_trylock(&nmi_reason_lock))
> > > +		poll_crash_ipi_and_callback(regs);
> > 
> > Waaait a minute: so if we're getting NMIs broadcasted on every core but
> > we're *not* crash dumping, we will run into here too. This can't be
> > right. :-\
> 
> This only does something if crash_ipi_done is set, which means you are killing
> the box.

Yeah, Michal and I discussed that on IRC today. And yeah, it is really
tricky stuff. So I appreciate it a lot you looking at it too. Thanks!

> But perhaps a comment that states that here would be useful, or maybe
> just put in the check here. There's no need to make it depend on SMP, as
> raw_spin_trylock() will turn to just ({1}) for UP, and that code wont even be
> hit.

Right, this code needs much more thorough documentation to counter the
trickiness.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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/