linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: Fix incorrect enabling of __use_tsc static

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: <1dfd996c-ef25-a622-879a-977f57193ca7@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 17:45:47 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: Fix incorrect enabling of __use_tsc static_key

On 12/3/19 3:54 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:41 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> After applying the commit 4763f03d3d18 ("x86/tsc: Use TSC as sched clock
>> early") and the commit 608008a45798 ("x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"),
>> some x86 systems boot up with the following warnings:
>>
>> [    0.000000] tsc: Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>> [    0.000000] tsc: Detected 2599.853 MHz processor
>> [    0.000000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [    0.000000] static_key_enable_cpuslocked(): static key
>> '__use_tsc+0x0/0x10' used before call to jump_label_init()
>> [    0.000000] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/jump_label.c:132 static_key_enable_cpuslocked+0x7b/0x80
>> [    0.000000] Modules linked in:
>> [    0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-154.el8.x86_64 #1
>> [    0.000000] Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017
>> [    0.000000] RIP: 0010:static_key_enable_cpuslocked+0x7b/0x80
>>   :
>> [    0.000000] Call Trace:
>> [    0.000000]  ? static_key_enable+0x16/0x20
>> [    0.000000]  ? setup_arch+0x43f/0xf68
>> [    0.000000]  ? printk+0x58/0x6f
>> [    0.000000]  ? start_kernel+0x63/0x55b
>> [    0.000000]  ? load_ucode_bsp+0xfb/0x12e
>> [    0.000000]  ? secondary_startup_64+0xb7/0xc0
>> [    0.000000] ---[ end trace fc2166797a50a8e0 ]---
>>   :
>> [ 1781.404905] INFO: NMI handler (nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 1.000 msecs
>> [ 1781.409905] INFO: NMI handler (nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 1.000 msecs
>> [ 1781.412905] INFO: NMI handler (nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 1.000 msecs
>> [ 1781.578905] INFO: NMI handler (nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 1.000 msecs
>> [ 1781.973905] INFO: NMI handler (nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 1.000 msecs
>>   :
>>
>> In this particular case,
>>
>>   setup_arch() => tsc_early_init()
>>                => tsc_enable_sched_clock()
>>                => static_branch_enable()
>>
>> However, jump_label_init() is called after setup_arch(). Before the
>> 2 commits listed above, static_branch_enable() was only called in
>> tsc_init() which is after jump_label_init().
> Hi Waiman,
>
> jump_label_init() is called from setup_arch():
> https://soleen.com/source/xref/linux/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c?r=11a98f37#911
>
>  tsc_early_init() early init is also called from setup_arch() but later:
> https://soleen.com/source/xref/linux/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c?r=11a98f37#1053
>
> I think that the kernel where this problem is seen, might be missing
> 8990cac6e5ea7fa57607736019fe8dca961b998f x86/jump_label: Initialize
> static branching early
> Or some other patches from that series.
>
> Thank you,
> Pasha
>
Yes, you are right. I overlooked the jump_label_init() call in
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c. The test kernel that I used did not have that
patch.

Sorry for the noise.

Thanks,
Longman