linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: improve current->(hard|soft)irqs_enabled synchronisation with actual irq state

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: <20200818154143.GT2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:41:43 +0200
From:   peterz@...radead.org
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: improve current->(hard|soft)irqs_enabled
 synchronisation with actual irq state

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:22:33PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from peterz@...radead.org's message of August 12, 2020 8:35 pm:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:18:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> Excerpts from peterz@...radead.org's message of August 7, 2020 9:11 pm:
> >> > 
> >> > What's wrong with something like this?
> >> > 
> >> > AFAICT there's no reason to actually try and add IRQ tracing here, it's
> >> > just a hand full of instructions at the most.
> >> 
> >> Because we may want to use that in other places as well, so it would
> >> be nice to have tracing.
> >> 
> >> Hmm... also, I thought NMI context was free to call local_irq_save/restore
> >> anyway so the bug would still be there in those cases?
> > 
> > NMI code has in_nmi() true, in which case the IRQ tracing is disabled
> > (except for x86 which has CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_NMI).
> > 
> 
> That doesn't help. It doesn't fix the lockdep irq state going out of
> synch with the actual irq state. The code which triggered this with the
> special powerpc irq disable has in_nmi() true as well.

Urgh, you're talking about using lockdep_assert_irqs*() from NMI
context?

If not, I'm afraid I might've lost the plot a little on what exact
failure case we're talking about.