linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: shift by 1UL rather than 1 to fix sign extension error

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161214130342.GK9728@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:03:42 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: shift by 1UL rather than 1 to fix sign extension
 error

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:55:07AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 09:40:02AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 08:47:55AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:36:47AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:09:27AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > #define for_each_leaf_node_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu) \
> > > > >         for((cpu) = (rnp)->grplo + find _first_bit(mask, MASK_BITS(mask)); \
> > > > >             (cpu) >= (rnp)->grplo && (cpu) <= (rnp)->grphi; \
> > > > >             (cpu) = (rnp)->grplo + find _next_bit(mask, ...,
> > > > > leaf_node_cpu_bit(rnp, cpu) + 1))) \
> > > > >                 if (!cpu_possible(cpu)) \
> > > > >                         continue; \
> > > > >                 else
> > > > 
> > > > What is the purpose of the cpu_possible() check?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > To filter out CPUs in range [grplo, grphi] but not in cpu_possible_mask.
> > 
> > Hmm.. if rcu_cpu_starting(cpu) is never called with "impossible" cpu,
> > IOW, ->qsmask and ->expmask never mask "impossible" cpus, then this is
> > just an over-care check.
> > 
> > I think I probably will remove this check eventually, let me audit the
> > code a little more for safety ;-)
> 
> FWIW, back when I wrote bc75e99983df1efd ("rcu: Correctly handle sparse
> possible cpus"), the only places I saw accesses to (percpu) data for
> !possible cpus were the places I fixed up. IIRC I tested with a version
> of the patch below.
> 
> That won't catch erroneous non-percpu accesses, but it covers part of
> the problem, at least. ;)
> 

Good point ;-) I will also add a WARN_ON_ONCE() in macro
for_each_leaf_node_cpu() and help me watch if anyone try to play an
interesting game on those masks.

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> ---->8----
> From fcabcee9ce080073496c736c49e2378a0907c656 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:08:29 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] percpu: add possible cpu validation
> 
> Recently, the RCU tree code was seen to access per-cpu data for CPUs not
> in cpu_possible_mask, for which a per-cpu region (and offset) had not
> been allocated. Often this went unnoticed because valid (but erroneous)
> pointers were generated, and the accesses hit some other data.
> 
> This patch adds a new CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU. When selected, per_cpu_ptr
> will verify that the provided CPU id is possible, and therefore there is
> a backing percpu area. When the CPU is not possible, we WARN, though the
> access proceeds are normal otherwise, matching the !CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU
> behaviour.
> 
> As the option can adversely affect performance, it is disabled by
> default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> ---
>  include/linux/percpu-defs.h | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>  lib/Kconfig.debug           | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> index 8f16299..1525352 100644
> --- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> @@ -207,6 +207,16 @@
>  	(void)__vpp_verify;						\
>  } while (0)
>  
> +/*
> + * __verify_pcpu_cpu() verifies that @cpu is possible, and hence has a valid
> + * percpu region.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU
> +#define __verify_pcpu_cpu(cpu)	WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_possible(cpu))
> +#else
> +#define __verify_pcpu_cpu(cpu) ({ (void)(cpu); })
> +#endif
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  
>  /*
> @@ -219,8 +229,10 @@
>  
>  #define per_cpu_ptr(ptr, cpu)						\
>  ({									\
> +	int ____cpu = (cpu);						\
> +	__verify_pcpu_cpu(____cpu);					\
>  	__verify_pcpu_ptr(ptr);						\
> -	SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((ptr), per_cpu_offset((cpu)));			\
> +	SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((ptr), per_cpu_offset((____cpu)));		\
>  })
>  
>  #define raw_cpu_ptr(ptr)						\
> @@ -247,7 +259,7 @@
>  	(typeof(*(__p)) __kernel __force *)(__p);			\
>  })
>  
> -#define per_cpu_ptr(ptr, cpu)	({ (void)(cpu); VERIFY_PERCPU_PTR(ptr); })
> +#define per_cpu_ptr(ptr, cpu)	({ __verify_pcpu_cpu(cpu); VERIFY_PERCPU_PTR(ptr); })
>  #define raw_cpu_ptr(ptr)	per_cpu_ptr(ptr, 0)
>  #define this_cpu_ptr(ptr)	raw_cpu_ptr(ptr)
>  
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index a6c8db1..14678d2 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -665,6 +665,16 @@ config DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS
>  
>  	  Say N if unsure.
>  
> +config DEBUG_PER_CPU
> +	bool "Debug access to percpu objects"
> +	depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> +	help
> +	  Say Y to verify that addresses are only generated for valid percpu
> +	  objects (i.e. for a possible CPU). This adds additional code and
> +	  decreases performance.
> +
> +	  Sey N if unsure.
> +
>  config DEBUG_HIGHMEM
>  	bool "Highmem debugging"
>  	depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && HIGHMEM
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)