linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] msr-trace.h:42 suspicious rcu_dereference

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: <20170223172801.GH6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:28:01 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG] msr-trace.h:42 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:24:34PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:28:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I think I prefer something like the below, that only annotates the one
> > RDMSR in question, instead of all of them.
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > index 0888a879120f..d6c6aa80675f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ static void amd_e400_idle(void)
> >  	if (!amd_e400_c1e_detected) {
> >  		u32 lo, hi;
> >  
> > -		rdmsr(MSR_K8_INT_PENDING_MSG, lo, hi);
> > +		RCU_NONIDLE(rdmsr(MSR_K8_INT_PENDING_MSG, lo, hi));
> >  
> >  		if (lo & K8_INTP_C1E_ACTIVE_MASK) {
> >  			amd_e400_c1e_detected = true;
> 
> hum, I might have missed some other solution in discussion,
> and can't see this one being pulled in.. should I resend this?
> 

I think Boris and Thomas were talking about moving the entire c1e
detection out of there.