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  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]
Date:   Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:40:46 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Jeremy Cline <jcline@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: x86/mce: suspicious RCU usage in 4.13.4

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:34:22PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > here's a second attempt at a more rigorous simplification: RCU stuff is
> > gone and only a single loop scans through the elements.
> 
> The dev_mce_log() changes look good now.
> 
> You can apply the axe to more bits of mce_chrdev_read() though. Like that

That provoked a very serious axing. Please check whether I went too far. Hunk
below is ontop of what got axed already:

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/dev-mcelog.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/dev-mcelog.c
index 1e1c6d22c93e..17d2bab25720 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/dev-mcelog.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/dev-mcelog.c
@@ -162,13 +162,6 @@ static int mce_chrdev_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void collect_tscs(void *data)
-{
-	unsigned long *cpu_tsc = (unsigned long *)data;
-
-	cpu_tsc[smp_processor_id()] = rdtsc();
-}
-
 static int mce_apei_read_done;
 
 /* Collect MCE record of previous boot in persistent storage via APEI ERST. */
@@ -216,14 +209,9 @@ static ssize_t mce_chrdev_read(struct file *filp, char __user *ubuf,
 				size_t usize, loff_t *off)
 {
 	char __user *buf = ubuf;
-	unsigned long *cpu_tsc;
-	unsigned prev, next;
+	unsigned next;
 	int i, err;
 
-	cpu_tsc = kmalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!cpu_tsc)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
 	mutex_lock(&mce_chrdev_read_mutex);
 
 	if (!mce_apei_read_done) {
@@ -232,63 +220,32 @@ static ssize_t mce_chrdev_read(struct file *filp, char __user *ubuf,
 			goto out;
 	}
 
-	next = mcelog.next;
-
 	/* Only supports full reads right now */
 	err = -EINVAL;
 	if (*off != 0 || usize < MCE_LOG_LEN*sizeof(struct mce))
 		goto out;
 
+	next = mcelog.next;
 	err = 0;
-	prev = 0;
-	do {
-		for (i = prev; i < next; i++) {
-			unsigned long start = jiffies;
-			struct mce *m = &mcelog.entry[i];
-
-			while (!m->finished) {
-				if (time_after_eq(jiffies, start + 2)) {
-					memset(m, 0, sizeof(*m));
-					goto timeout;
-				}
-				cpu_relax();
-			}
-			smp_rmb();
-			err |= copy_to_user(buf, m, sizeof(*m));
-			buf += sizeof(*m);
-timeout:
-			;
-		}
-
-		memset(mcelog.entry + prev, 0,
-		       (next - prev) * sizeof(struct mce));
-		prev = next;
-		next = cmpxchg(&mcelog.next, prev, 0);
-	} while (next != prev);
-
-	/*
-	 * Collect entries that were still getting written before the
-	 * synchronize.
-	 */
-	on_each_cpu(collect_tscs, cpu_tsc, 1);
 
-	for (i = next; i < MCE_LOG_LEN; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < next; i++) {
 		struct mce *m = &mcelog.entry[i];
 
-		if (m->finished && m->tsc < cpu_tsc[m->cpu]) {
-			err |= copy_to_user(buf, m, sizeof(*m));
-			smp_rmb();
-			buf += sizeof(*m);
-			memset(m, 0, sizeof(*m));
-		}
+		if (!m->finished)
+			continue;
+
+		err |= copy_to_user(buf, m, sizeof(*m));
+		buf += sizeof(*m);
 	}
 
+	memset(mcelog.entry, 0, next * sizeof(struct mce));
+	mcelog.next = 0;
+
 	if (err)
 		err = -EFAULT;
 
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&mce_chrdev_read_mutex);
-	kfree(cpu_tsc);
 
 	return err ? err : buf - ubuf;
 }

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists