linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b09903d2-b6f5-299e-5880-f048fd4e1a8b@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:03:08 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        longman@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait() nestable

On 01/10/2018 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.10.18 at 09:16, <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>> xen_qlock_wait() isn't safe for nested calls due to interrupts. A call
>> of xen_qlock_kick() might be ignored in case a deeper nesting level
>> was active right before the call of xen_poll_irq():
>>
>> CPU 1:                                   CPU 2:
>> spin_lock(lock1)
>>                                          spin_lock(lock1)
>>                                          -> xen_qlock_wait()
>>                                             -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
>>                                             Interrupt happens
>> spin_unlock(lock1)
>> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
>> spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
>>                                          spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
>>                                          -> xen_qlock_wait()
>>                                             -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
>>                                                clears kick for lock1
>>                                             -> xen_poll_irq()
>> spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
>> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
>>                                             wakes up
>>                                          spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
>>                                          IRET
>>                                            resumes in xen_qlock_wait()
>>                                            -> xen_poll_irq()
>>                                            never wakes up
>>
>> The solution is to disable interrupts in xen_qlock_wait() and not to
>> poll for the irq in case xen_qlock_wait() is called in nmi context.
> 
> Are precautions against NMI really worthwhile? Locks acquired both
> in NMI context as well as outside of it are liable to deadlock anyway,
> aren't they?

The locks don't need to be the same. A NMI-only lock tried to be
acquired with xen_qlock_wait() for another lock having been interrupted
by the NMI will be enough to risk the issue.

So yes, I believe the test for NMI is good to have.


Juergen