linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: c-r4k: instruction_hazard should immediately follow cache op

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: <20171221153004.GH5027@jhogan-linux.mipstec.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:30:05 +0000
From:   James Hogan <james.hogan@...s.com>
To:     Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>
CC:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        "stable # v4 . 9+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: c-r4k: instruction_hazard should immediately
 follow cache op

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 03:19:35PM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On 21/12/17 15:14, James Hogan wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:16:02AM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> >> During ftrace initialisation, placeholder instructions in the prologue
> >> of every kernel function not marked "notrace" are replaced with nops.
> >> After the instructions are written (to the dcache), flush_icache_range()
> >> is used to ensure that the icache will be updated with these replaced
> >> instructions. Currently there is an instruction_hazard guard at the end
> >> of __r4k_flush_icache_range, since a hazard can be created if the CPU
> >> has already begun fetching the instructions that have have been
> >> replaced. The placement, however, ignores the calls to preempt_enable(),
> >> both in __r4k_flush_icache_range and r4k_on_each_cpu. When
> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled, these expand out to at least calls to
> >> preempt_count_sub(). The lack of an instruction hazard between icache
> >> invalidate and the execution of preempt_count_sub, in rare
> >> circumstances, was observed to cause weird crashes on Ci40, where the
> >> CPU would end up taking a kernel unaligned access exception from the
> >> middle of do_ade(), which it somehow reached from preempt_count_sub
> >> without executing the start of do_ade.
> >>
> >> Since the instruction hazard exists immediately after the dcache is
> >> written back and icache invalidated, place the instruction_hazard()
> >> within __local_r4k_flush_icache_range. The one at the end of
> >> __r4k_flush_icache_range is too late, since all of the functions in the
> >> call path of preempt_enable have already been executed, so remove it.
> >>
> >> This fixes the crashes during ftrace initialisation on Ci40.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>
> >> Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.9+
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>   arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 3 ++-
> >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> >> index 6f534b209971..ce7a54223504 100644
> >> --- a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> >> +++ b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> >> @@ -760,6 +760,8 @@ static inline void __local_r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> >>   			break;
> >>   		}
> >>   	}
> >> +	/* Hazard to force new i-fetch */
> >> +	instruction_hazard();
> > 
> > By the sounds of it that is a hardware bug, that it didn't try and
> > execute either the old instruction or the new instruction.
> 
> Yeah, possibly.
> 
>   Maybe an
> > expanded comment would be worthwhile here. If it wasn't for that issue
> > it would I suppose be safe for it to be directly before the
> > preempt_enable() in __r4k_flush_icache_range().
> 
> No - there's another preempt_enable() in r4k_on_each_cpu (noted in the 
> commit message) so by the time the local CPU gets to the 
> preempt_enable() in __r4k_flush_icache_range, it has potentially already 
> executed the preempt_enable path and died. That's why I put it here.

Right, but it wouldn't matter since it would still execute valid code?

Cheers
James

> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > James
> > 
> >>   }
> >>   
> >>   static inline void local_r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> >> @@ -817,7 +819,6 @@ static void __r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> >>   	}
> >>   	r4k_on_each_cpu(args.type, local_r4k_flush_icache_range_ipi, &args);
> >>   	preempt_enable();
> >> -	instruction_hazard();
> >>   }
> >>   
> >>   static void r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >> -- 
> >> 2.7.4
> >>