linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/20] ARM/hw_breakpoint: Convert to hotplug state machine

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: <20170105155724.GC25868@leverpostej>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:57:24 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        rt@...uxtronix.de,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/20] ARM/hw_breakpoint: Convert to hotplug state machine

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:32:06PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:56:44PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:33:36AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:15:29PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > > > <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:34:32PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > >> in the first line of arch_hw_breakpoint_init() in
> > > > >> arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I suspect that is not an accepable solution ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It hangs at PC is at write_wb_reg+0x20c/0x330
> > > > >> Which is c03101dc, and looks like this in objdump -d:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> c031020c:       ee001eba        mcr     14, 0, r1, cr0, cr10, {5}
> > > > >> c0310210:       eaffffb3        b       c03100e4 <write_wb_reg+0x114>
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and this is several instructions after the address you mention above.
> > > > > Presumably c03101dc is accessing a higher numbered register?
> > > > 
> > > > Ah sorry. It looks like this:
> > > > 
> > > > c03101dc:       ee001ed0        mcr     14, 0, r1, cr0, cr0, {6}
> > > > c03101e0:       eaffffbf        b       c03100e4 <write_wb_reg+0x114>
> > > > c03101e4:       ee001ebf        mcr     14, 0, r1, cr0, cr15, {5}
> > > > c03101e8:       eaffffbd        b       c03100e4 <write_wb_reg+0x114>
> > > > c03101ec:       ee001ebe        mcr     14, 0, r1, cr0, cr14, {5}
> > > > c03101f0:       eaffffbb        b       c03100e4 <write_wb_reg+0x114>
> > > > c03101f4:       ee001ebd        mcr     14, 0, r1, cr0, cr13, {5}
> > > > c03101f8:       eaffffb9        b       c03100e4 <write_wb_reg+0x114>
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I was tracking an issue in this area before the holiday.
> > > 
> > > It looked like DBGPRSR.SPD is set unexpectedly over the default idle
> > > path (i.e. WFI), causing the (otherwise valid) register accesses above
> > > to be handled as undefined.
> > > 
> > > I haven't looked at the patch in detail, but I guess that it allows idle
> > > to occur between reset_ctrl_regs() and arch_hw_breakpoint_init().
> > 
> > I've just reproduced this locally on my dragonboard APQ8060.
> > 
> > It looks like the write_wb_reg() call that's exploding is from
> > get_max_wp_len(), which we call immediately after registering the
> > dbg_reset_online callback. Clearing DBGPRSR.SPD before the write_wb_reg() hides
> > the problem, so I suspect we're seeing the issue I mentioned above -- it just
> > so happens that we go idle in a new place.
> 
> When you say "go idle", are we just executing a WFI, 

>From my prior experiments, just executing a WFI as we happen to do in
the default cpu_v7_do_idle. I tried passing cpuidle.off=1, but that
didn't help. NOPing the WFI in cpu_v7_do_idle did mask the issue, from
what I recall.

> or is the power controller coming into play and we're actually
> powering down the non-debug logic?

As far as I can see, that isn't happening. We don't save/restore any
other CPU state in the default idle path, and the kernel is otherwise
happy.

> In the case of the latter, the PM notifier should clear SPD in
> reset_ctrl_regs, so this sounds like a hardware bug where the SPD bit is
> set unconditionally on WFI.
> 
> In that case, this code has always been dodgy -- what happens if you try
> to use hardware breakpoints in GDB in the face of WFI-based idle?

The kernel blows up similiarly to Linus's original report when the
kernel tries to program the breakpoint registers.

I also believe this has always been dodgy.

> > The below hack allows boot to continue, but is not a real fix. I'm not
> > immediately sure what to do.
> 
> If it's never worked, I suggest we blacklist the MIDR until somebody from
> Qualcomm can help us further.

I'll see about putting a patch together.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Will