linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside get_arm64_ftr

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: <20200521162212.GK6608@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 17:22:15 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside
 get_arm64_ftr_reg()

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:45:38AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/20/2020 11:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 04:47:11PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:20:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:52:54AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>>> There is no way to proceed when requested register could not be searched in
> >>>> arm64_ftr_reg[]. Requesting for a non present register would be an error as
> >>>> well. Hence lets just BUG_ON() when the search fails in get_arm64_ftr_reg()
> >>>> rather than checking for return value and doing the same in some individual
> >>>> callers.
> >>>>
> >>>> But there are some callers that dont BUG_ON() upon search failure. It adds
> >>>> an argument 'failsafe' that provides required switch between callers based
> >>>> on whether they could proceed or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> >>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> >>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> >>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> >>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Applies on next-20200518 that has recent cpufeature changes from Will.
> >>>>
> >>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>> index bc5048f152c1..62767cc540c3 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static int search_cmp_ftr_reg(const void *id, const void *regp)
> >>>>   *         - NULL on failure. It is upto the caller to decide
> >>>>   *	     the impact of a failure.
> >>>>   */
> >>>> -static struct arm64_ftr_reg *get_arm64_ftr_reg(u32 sys_id)
> >>>> +static struct arm64_ftr_reg *get_arm64_ftr_reg(u32 sys_id, bool failsafe)
> >>>
> >>> Generally, I'm not a big fan of boolean arguments because they are really
> >>> opaque at the callsite. It also seems bogus to me that we don't trust the
> >>> caller to pass a valid sys_id, but we trust it to get "failsafe" right,
> >>> which seems to mean "I promise to check the result isn't NULL before
> >>> dereferencing it."
> >>>
> >>> So I don't see how this patch improves anything. I'd actually be more
> >>> inclined to stick a WARN() in get_arm64_ftr_reg() when it returns NULL and
> >>> have the callers handle NULL by returning early, getting rid of all the
> >>> BUG_ONs in here. Sure, the system might end up in a funny state, but we
> >>> WARN()d about it and tried to keep going (and Linus has some strong opinions
> >>> on this too).
> >>
> >> Such WARN can be triggered by the user via emulate_sys_reg(), so we
> >> can't really have it in get_arm64_ftr_reg() without a 'failsafe' option.
> > 
> > Ah yes, that would be bad. In which case, I don't think the existing code
> > should change.
> 
> The existing code has BUG_ON() in three different callers doing exactly the
> same thing that can easily be taken care in get_arm64_ftr_reg() itself. As
> mentioned before an enum variable (as preferred - over a bool) can still
> preserve the existing behavior for emulate_sys_reg().
> 
> IMHO these are very good reasons for us to change the code which will make
> it cleaner while also removing three redundant BUG_ON() instances. Hence I
> will request you to please reconsider this proposal.

Hmm, then how about trying my proposal with the WARN_ON(), but having a
get_arm64_ftr_reg_nowarn() variant for the user emulation case?

Will