linux-kernel - Re: [patch V4 part 1 29/36] x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work

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: <CALCETrWcEQdT2kLYQknWWVcNdqnuaZcA6RMDPbD5c9Scf2uUVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 14:30:01 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 29/36] x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:48 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > >
> > > Convert #MC over to using task_work_add(); it will run the same code
> > > slightly later, on the return to user path of the same exception.
> >
> > I think this patch is correct, but I think it's only one small and not
> > that obviously wrong step away from being broken:
> >
> > >         if ((m.cs & 3) == 3) {
> > >                 /* If this triggers there is no way to recover. Die hard. */
> > >                 BUG_ON(!on_thread_stack() || !user_mode(regs));
> > > -               local_irq_enable();
> > > -               preempt_enable();
> > >
> > > -               if (kill_it || do_memory_failure(&m))
> > > -                       force_sig(SIGBUS);
> > > -               preempt_disable();
> > > -               local_irq_disable();
> > > +               current->mce_addr = m.addr;
> > > +               current->mce_status = m.mcgstatus;
> > > +               current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_maybe;
> > > +               if (kill_it)
> > > +                       current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_now;
> > > +               task_work_add(current, &current->mce_kill_me, true);
> >
> > This is fine if the source was CPL3, but it's not going to work if CPL
> > was 0.  We don't *currently* do this from CPL0, but people keep
> > wanting to.  So perhaps there should be a comment like:
> >
> > /*
> >  * The #MC originated at CPL3, so we know that we will go execute the
> > task_work before returning to the offending user code.
> >  */
> >
> > IOW, if we want to recover from CPL0 #MC, we will need a different mechanism.
>
> See part4-18's IDTRENTRY_NOIST. That will get us a clear CPL3/CPL0
> separation.

I will hold my breath.

>
> > I also confess a certain amount of sadness that my beautiful
> > haha-not-really-atomic-here mechanism isn't being used anymore. :(
>
> I think we have a subtely different interpretation of 'beautiful' here.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  And sometimes in the eye of the
person who wrote the code :)