linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Entry stack switching

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2017 07:29:40 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Entry stack switching

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > Anyway, I booted your config (more or less -- I munged it through
>> > > virtme-configkernel --update first) with 17 vCPUs and it seems fine.
>> > > Is the issue reliable enough to bisect?
>> >
>> > Ok, it should be bisectable, will try to bisect it.
>>
>> The latestest entry-stack code appears to be working fine though.
>>
>> So one of the below fixes from yesterday appears to have done the trick.
>>
>> I'll re-test today to make sure: maybe it's more sporadic than I thought, in one
>> of the bootups I got the do_IRQ warning only once, in half a day of uptime.
>
> I re-tested and it all seems fine now. I suspect it got fixed by:
>
>   ca37e57bbe0c: x86/entry/64: Add missing irqflags tracing to native_load_gs_index()
>
> still it is weird, because I boot that system with latest -tip on a daily basis,
> and don't remember having seen that warning.
>
> Do you have any theory for why the entry stack changes would uncover this bug?

No.  I also don't see why it would have anything to do with irqflag
tracing.  As far as I know, the unhandled IRQ warning has nothing to
do with tracing or lockdep.