linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pstore: Convert buf

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: <CAGXu5jLsHU0sRsnoynt==bZuagvohfAOGUu_i54Jy8BCFTvitQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 16:28:15 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: Convert buf_lock to semaphore

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:26 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:18 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-12-01 09:42:38 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > You are right that you can't take (or release) a mutex from interrupt
> > > context. However, I don't think converting a spinlock to a semaphore
> > > is going to help here either.
> >
> > you can acquire a semaphore with a try_lock from interrupts context but
> > you can't do that with a mutex. You can also a acquire a semaphore in
> > one context and release in another.
>
> Right, that is the obvious part.
>
> > I haven't looked a general picture yet, will try to do so later today or
> > tomorrow.
>
> To speed this up, the problem I'm referring to is in
> virt_efi_query_variable_info() and efi_queue_work(),
> as in the original BUG_ON() that Kees quoted:
>
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/sched/completion.c:99
> > |in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 2236, name: sig-xstate-bum
> > |Preemption disabled at:
> > |[<ffffffff99d60512>] pstore_dump+0x72/0x330
> > |CPU: 26 PID: 2236 Comm: sig-xstate-bum Tainted: G      D           4.20.0-rc3 #45
> > |Call Trace:
> > | dump_stack+0x4f/0x6a
> > | ___might_sleep.cold.91+0xd3/0xe4
> > | __might_sleep+0x50/0x90
> > | wait_for_completion+0x32/0x130
> > | virt_efi_query_variable_info+0x14e/0x160
> > | efi_query_variable_store+0x51/0x1a0
> > | efivar_entry_set_safe+0xa3/0x1b0
> > | efi_pstore_write+0x109/0x140
> > | pstore_dump+0x11c/0x330
> > | kmsg_dump+0xa4/0xd0
> > | oops_exit+0x22/0x30
>
> This will no longer happen when pstore is called from process
> context with his patch, but we still get the same thing if we call
> pstore from interrupt context, unless both the down_interruptible
> and wait_for_completion in there are also changed to
> nonblocking calls. However, once they are no longer blocking,
> we don't need the outer lock to be changed from spinlock
> to semaphore any more either.

My proposed patch was trying to do two things:

- have pstore not make things _worse_ (do not hold a spin lock)
- use preemptible() in efi pstore backend to get it right:

        ret = efivar_entry_set_safe(efi_name, vendor, PSTORE_EFI_ATTRIBUTES,
-                             !pstore_cannot_block_path(record->reason),
-                             record->size, record->psi->buf);
+                             preemptible(), record->size, record->psi->buf);

IIUC, that would make efi-vars take the nonblocking path so we don't
trip over the might_sleep().

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook