linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

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, 10 Dec 2018 10:44:38 +0000
From:   "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
CC:     DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to
 fail

Patches #1 and #3 are Reviewed-by: Christian König 
<christian.koenig@....com>

Patch #2 is Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> because 
I can't judge if adding the counter in the thread structure is actually 
a good idea.

In patch #4 I honestly don't understand at all how this stuff works, so 
no-comment from my side on this.

Christian.

Am 10.12.18 um 11:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into
> callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier
> implementation might fail when it's not allowed to.
>
> Inspired by some confusion we had discussing i915 mmu notifiers and
> whether we could use the newly-introduced return value to handle some
> corner cases. Until we realized that these are only for when a task
> has been killed by the oom reaper.
>
> An alternative approach would be to split the callback into two
> versions, one with the int return value, and the other with void
> return value like in older kernels. But that's a lot more churn for
> fairly little gain I think.
>
> Summary from the m-l discussion on why we want something at warning
> level: This allows automated tooling in CI to catch bugs without
> humans having to look at everything. If we just upgrade the existing
> pr_info to a pr_warn, then we'll have false positives. And as-is, no
> one will ever spot the problem since it's lost in the massive amounts
> of overall dmesg noise.
>
> v2: Drop the full WARN_ON backtrace in favour of just a pr_warn for
> the problematic case (Michal Hocko).
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@....com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
> ---
>   mm/mmu_notifier.c | 3 +++
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 5119ff846769..ccc22f21b735 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -190,6 +190,9 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mm_struct *mm,
>   				pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
>   						mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
>   						!blockable ? "non-" : "");
> +				if (blockable)
> +					pr_warn("%pS callback failure not allowed\n",
> +						mn->ops->invalidate_range_start);
>   				ret = _ret;
>   			}
>   		}