linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 clocksource 3/5] clocksource: Check per-CPU clock synchronization when marked unstable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:48:28 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, corbet@....net, Mark.Rutland@....com,
        maz@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, neeraju@...eaurora.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 clocksource 3/5] clocksource: Check per-CPU clock
 synchronization when marked unstable

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:49:11PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12 2021 at 16:18, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:37:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 12 2021 at 12:57, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:54:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> >> > I will send a new series out later today, Pacific Time.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Can you do me a favour and send it standalone and not as yet another
> >> >> reply to this existing thread maze. A trivial lore link to the previous
> >> >> version gives enough context.
> >> >
> >> > Will do!
> >> >
> >> > Of course, it turns out that lockdep also doesn't like waited-on
> >> > smp_call_function_single() invocations from timer handlers,
> >> > so I am currently looking at other options for dealing with that
> >> > potential use-after-free.  I am starting to like the looks of "only set
> >> > CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU on statically allocated clocksource structures
> >> > and let KASAN enforce this restriction", but I have not quite given up
> >> > on making it more general.
> >> 
> >> The simplest point is in the thread under the clocksource_mutex which
> >> prevents anything from vanishing under your feet.
> >
> > And lockdep is -much- happier with the setup shown below, so thank
> > you again!
> 
> But it is too simple now :) ...
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > index f047c6cb056c..34dc38b6b923 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > @@ -519,6 +515,13 @@ static int __clocksource_watchdog_kthread(void)
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	int select = 0;
> >  
> > +	/* Do any required per-CPU skew verification. */
> > +	list_for_each_entry(cs, &watchdog_list, wd_list) {
> > +		if ((cs->flags & (CLOCK_SOURCE_UNSTABLE | CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU)) ==
> > +		    (CLOCK_SOURCE_UNSTABLE | CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU))
> > +			clocksource_verify_percpu(cs);
> > +	}
> 
> because that list is _NOT_ protected by the clocksource_mutex as you
> noticed yourself already.
> 
> But you don't have to walk that list at all because the only interesting
> thing is the currently active clocksource, which is about to be changed
> in case the watchdog marked it unstable and cannot be changed by any
> other code concurrently because clocksource_mutex is held.
> 
> So all you need is:
> 
> 	if (curr_clocksource &&
> 	    curr_clocksource->flags & CLOCK_SOURCE_UNSTABLE &&
> 	    curr_clocksource->flags & CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU)
> 		clocksource_verify_percpu_wreckage(curr_clocksource);
> 
> Hmm?

With the addition of a clocksource=tsc boot parameter, this approach
does appear to work, thank you!  I sent out the updated series.

							Thanx, Paul