linux-kernel - Re: #PF from NMI

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: <20201114010526.GK3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:05:26 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, eupm90@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: #PF from NMI

On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 12:13:58AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 13:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [  139.226724] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 2290 at kernel/rcu/tree.c:932 __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick+0x84/0xd0
> > [  139.226753]  irqentry_enter+0x25/0x40
> > [  139.226753]  exc_page_fault+0x38/0x4c0
> > [  139.226753]  asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30
> 
> ...
> 
> > [  139.226757]  perf_callchain_user+0xf4/0x280
> >
> > Which is a #PF from NMI context, which is perfectly fine. However
> > __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() is triggering WARN.
> >
> > AFAICT the right thing is to simply remove the warn like so.
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 430ba58d8bfe..9bda92d8b914 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -928,8 +928,8 @@ void __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(void)
> >  {
> >  	struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> >  
> > -	 // Enabling the tick is unsafe in NMI handlers.
> > -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi()))
> > +	// if we're here from NMI, there's nothing to do.
> > +	if (in_nmi())
> >  		return;
> >  
> >  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs(),
> 
> Yes. That's right.
> 
> To answer Pauls question:
> 
> > But is a corresponding change required on return-from-NMI side?
> > Looks OK to me at first glance, but I could be missing something.
> 
> No. The corresponding issue is not return from NMI. The corresponding
> problem is the return from the page fault handler, but there is nothing
> to worry about. That part is NMI safe already.

In that case:

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>

Or let me know (and get me a Signed-off-by) if you want me to take it.

							Thanx, Paul

> And Luto's as well:
> 
> > with the following caveat that has nothing to do with NMI: the rest of
> > irqentry_enter() has tracing calls in it. Does anything prevent
> > infinite recursion if one of those tracing calls causes a page fault?
> 
> nmi:
>   ...
>   trace_hardirqs_off_finish() {
>     if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
>            this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 1);
>            ...
>   }
>   ...
>   perf()
> 
> #PF
>   save_cr2()
>   
>   irqentry_enter()
>      trace_hardirqs_off_finish()
>         if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> 
> So yes, it is recursion protected unless I'm missing something.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx