linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200602200036.GA2627@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 22:00:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...capital.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org, a.darwish@...utronix.de,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:25:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:14:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > Why remove the check for debug_locks? Isn't that there to disable
> > everything at once to prevent more warnings to be printed?
> 
> Yeah, maybe. I was thinking we could keep IRQ state running. But you're
> right, if we mess up the IRQ state itself this might generate a wee
> mess.

How's this then?

---
Subject: lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Wed May 27 15:00:57 CEST 2020

There is no reason not to always, accurately, track IRQ state.

This change also makes IRQ state tracking ignore lockdep_off().

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c |   44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3646,7 +3646,16 @@ static void __trace_hardirqs_on_caller(v
  */
 void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
 {
-	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || current->lockdep_recursion))
+	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * NMIs do not (and cannot) track lock dependencies, nothing to do.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(in_nmi()))
+		return;
+
+	if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
 		return;
 
 	if (unlikely(current->hardirqs_enabled)) {
@@ -3692,7 +3701,27 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
 
-	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
+	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * NMIs can happen in the middle of local_irq_{en,dis}able() where the
+	 * tracking state and hardware state are out of sync.
+	 *
+	 * NMIs must save lockdep_hardirqs_enabled() to restore IRQ state from,
+	 * and not rely on hardware state like normal interrupts.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(in_nmi())) {
+		/*
+		 * Skip:
+		 *  - recursion check, because NMI can hit lockdep;
+		 *  - hardware state check, because above;
+		 *  - chain_key check, see lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare().
+		 */
+		goto skip_checks;
+	}
+
+	if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
 		return;
 
 	if (curr->hardirqs_enabled) {
@@ -3720,6 +3749,7 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
 	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirq_chain_key !=
 			    current->curr_chain_key);
 
+skip_checks:
 	/* we'll do an OFF -> ON transition: */
 	curr->hardirqs_enabled = 1;
 	curr->hardirq_enable_ip = ip;
@@ -3735,7 +3765,15 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_off(unsign
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
 
-	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
+	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * Matching lockdep_hardirqs_on(), allow NMIs in the middle of lockdep;
+	 * they will restore the software state. This ensures the software
+	 * state is consistent inside NMIs as well.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(!in_nmi() && (current->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK)))
 		return;
 
 	/*