linux-kernel - Re: [bug] __blk_mq_run_hw_queue suspicious rcu usage

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: <20190905060627.GA1753@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 08:06:27 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Jianxiong Gao <jxgao@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bug] __blk_mq_run_hw_queue suspicious rcu usage

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 02:40:44PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> Hi Christoph, Jens, and Ming,
> 
> While booting a 5.2 SEV-enabled guest we have encountered the following 
> WARNING that is followed up by a BUG because we are in atomic context 
> while trying to call set_memory_decrypted:

Well, this really is a x86 / DMA API issue unfortunately.  Drivers
are allowed to do GFP_ATOMIC dma allocation under locks / rcu critical
sections and from interrupts.  And it seems like the SEV case can't
handle that.  We have some semi-generic code to have a fixed sized
pool in kernel/dma for non-coherent platforms that have similar issues
that we could try to wire up, but I wonder if there is a better way
to handle the issue, so I've added Tom and the x86 maintainers.

Now independent of that issue using DMA coherent memory for the nvme
PRPs/SGLs doesn't actually feel very optional.  We could do with
normal kmalloc allocations and just sync it to the device and back.
I wonder if we should create some general mempool-like helpers for that.