linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3031 at ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:530 fpu_

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20160217093511.GC19001@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:35:12 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3031 at
 ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:530 fpu__restore+0x90/0x130()


* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:16:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So I'm wondering why this started triggering only now. Is this a pre-existing bug 
> > that somehow got triggered via:
> > 
> >   58122bf1d856 x86/fpu: Default eagerfpu=on on all CPUs
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Well, that's an interesting question. See, the thing is, I triggered
> this only *once* by accident and I haven't seen it ever since.
> 
> The "reliable" "reproducer" I used to debug this was Andy's suggestion
> to stick a schedule() in __fpu__restore_sig().
> 
> So the answer to that question is not easy.
> 
> BUT(!), regardless, the bug still needs to be fixed because my tracing
> here

The fix is absolutely needed, I just would like deeper analysis about how it 
wasn't seen before.

> > If yes then we need a plausible theory of how that never triggered on modern 
> > Intel CPUs that had eagerfpu enabled for years.
> 
> AFAICT, it triggers - and the window is very small at that - only on
> 32-bit. If at all.

So it probably triggers on vanilla v4.4 (or v4.5-rc4) as well, with no recent FPU 
bits applied?

> I can certainly try to test all those but I don't have a reliable reproducer. 
> The only thing I could do is check out each of those commits and stick a 
> schedule() in __fpu__restore_sig() and see what happens.
> 
> But if my analysis above is right, none of those would matter because of the 
> mechanism of how the warn happens...

So if you stick a schedule() into vanilla and it triggers then I think we can 
declare it an existing bug. (and then the fix also needs Cc: stable)

Thanks,

	Ingo