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:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:57:15 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:50 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:44:11AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:39:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > 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).
>
> I disagree with this v2 note, the WARN_ON/WARN will trigger checkers
> like syzkaller to report a bug, while a random pr_warn probably will
> not.
>
> I do agree the backtrace is not useful here, but we don't have a
> warn-no-backtrace version..
>
> IMHO, kernel/driver bugs should always be reported by WARN &
> friends. We never expect to see the print, so why do we care how big
> it is?
>
> Also note that WARN integrates an unlikely() into it so the codegen is
> automatically a bit more optimal that the if & pr_warn combination.

Where do you make a difference between a WARN without backtrace and a
pr_warn? They're both dumped at the same log-level ...

I can easily throw an unlikely around this here if that's the only
thing that's blocking the merge.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch