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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <5BB1E65002000078001ED196@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Mon, 01 Oct 2018 03:18:08 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        <longman@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait()
 nestable

>>> On 01.10.18 at 11:03, <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, right. In which case
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>

Jan