linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] arm64: fault: avoid send SIGBUS two times

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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:52:44 +0000
From:   James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:     gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
CC:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        tbaicar@...eaurora.org, kristina.martsenko@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Huangshaoyu <huangshaoyu@...wei.com>,
        Wuquanming <wuquanming@...wei.com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] arm64: fault: avoid send SIGBUS two times

Hi gengdongjiu,

On 08/12/17 04:43, gengdongjiu wrote:
> by the way, I think also change the info.si_code to "BUS_MCEERR_AR" is better, as shown [1].
> BUS_MCEERR_AR can tell user space  "Hardware memory error consumed on a error; action required".

Today its also used as the last-resort. This signal tells user-space the page
can't be re-read from disk/swap, and its been unmapped from all affected processes.

I think using it like this (tempting as it is) changes the meaning.

> so it is better than "0". In the X86 platform, it also use the "BUS_MCEERR_AR" for si_code[2] in "arch/x86/mm/fault.c".
> what do you think about it?

This is heading into kernel-first territory, I'd prefer we do that all at once
so we know everything is covered.

> [2]:
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c:
> 
> static void
> do_sigbus(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, unsigned long address,
>       u32 *pkey, unsigned int fault)
> {
>   ......
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
>     if (fault & (VM_FAULT_HWPOISON|VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE)) {

These VM_FAULT flags indicate memory_failure() has run, tried to re-read the
memory from disk/swap, failed, and unmapped the page from all affected processes.

>         printk(KERN_ERR
>     "MCE: Killing %s:%d due to hardware memory corruption fault at %lx\n",
>             tsk->comm, tsk->pid, address);
>         code = BUS_MCEERR_AR;
>     }
> #endif
>     force_sig_info_fault(SIGBUS, code, address, tsk, pkey, fault);
> }

This is x86's page fault handler, not its Machine-Check-Exception handler.

arm64's page fault handler does this too, from do_page_fault():
>	} else if (fault & (VM_FAULT_HWPOISON | VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE)) {
>		sig = SIGBUS;
>		code = BUS_MCEERR_AR;

If you're seeing this, its likely due to the race Xie XiuQi spotted where the
recovery action has been queued, then we return to user-space before its done.

I had a go at tackling this, adding helpers to kick the assorted queues, which
we can do if we took the exception from user-space. Where I got stuck is whether
we should still force a signal, and how signals get merged. I'll try and spend
some more time on that this week.

Thanks,

James