linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] x86: rework arch_local_irq

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: <20201209132710.GA8566@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:27:10 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] x86: rework arch_local_irq_restore() to not use
 popf

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 01:44:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:55 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 20.11.20 12:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:46:23PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >> +static __always_inline void arch_local_irq_restore(unsigned long flags)
> > >> +{
> > >> +    if (!arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
> > >> +            arch_local_irq_enable();
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > If someone were to write horrible code like:
> > >
> > >       local_irq_disable();
> > >       local_irq_save(flags);
> > >       local_irq_enable();
> > >       local_irq_restore(flags);
> > >
> > > we'd be up some creek without a paddle... now I don't _think_ we have
> > > genius code like that, but I'd feel saver if we can haz an assertion in
> > > there somewhere...
> > >
> > > Maybe something like:
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY // for lack of something saner
> > >       WARN_ON_ONCE((arch_local_save_flags() ^ flags) & X86_EFLAGS_IF);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > At the end?
> >
> > I'd like to, but using WARN_ON_ONCE() in include/asm/irqflags.h sounds
> > like a perfect receipt for include dependency hell.
> >
> > We could use a plain asm("ud2") instead.
> 
> How about out-of-lining it:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
> extern void warn_bogus_irqrestore();
> #endif
> 
> static __always_inline void arch_local_irq_restore(unsigned long flags)
> {
>        if (!arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) {
>                arch_local_irq_enable();
>        } else {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
>                if (unlikely(arch_local_irq_save() & X86_EFLAGS_IF))
>                     warn_bogus_irqrestore();
> #endif
> }

I was just talking to Peter on IRC about implementing the same thing for
arm64, so could we put this in the generic irqflags code? IIUC we can
use raw_irqs_disabled() to do the check.

As this isn't really entry specific (and IIUC the cases this should
catch would break lockdep today), maybe we should add a new
DEBUG_IRQFLAGS for this, that DEBUG_LOCKDEP can also select?

Something like:

#define local_irq_restore(flags)                               \
       do {                                                    \
               if (!raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) {          \
                       trace_hardirqs_on();                    \
               } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_IRQFLAGS) {  \
                       if (unlikely(raw_irqs_disabled())       \
                               warn_bogus_irqrestore();        \
               }                                               \
               raw_local_irq_restore(flags);                   \
        } while (0)

... perhaps? (ignoring however we deal with once-ness).

Thanks,
Mark.