| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <68ce6212-29f0-beb1-16fa-bd5e7d1e2806@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:44:14 +0800
From: Xiaofei Tan <tanxiaofei@...wei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ACPI / APEI: fix the regression of synchronous
external aborts occur in user-mode
Hi Rafael,
On 2021/6/9 21:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:06 AM Xiaofei Tan <tanxiaofei@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Before commit 8fcc4ae6faf8 ("arm64: acpi: Make apei_claim_sea()
>> synchronise with APEI's irq work"), do_sea() would unconditionally
>> signal the affected task from the arch code. Since that change,
>> the GHES driver sends the signals.
>
> Since this fixes a regression apparently introduced by the above
> commit, please add a Fixes tag pointing to that commit to it.
>
OK.
>> This exposes a problem as errors the GHES driver doesn't understand
>> or doesn't handle effectively are silently ignored. It will cause
>> the errors get taken again, and circulate endlessly. User-space task
>> get stuck in this loop.
>>
>> Existing firmware on Kunpeng9xx systems reports cache errors with the
>> 'ARM Processor Error' CPER records.
>>
>> Do memory failure handling for ARM Processor Error Section just like
>> for Memory Error Section.
>
> So why is this the right thing to do?
>
> I guess it doesn't address the problem entirely, but only in this
> particular case, so what if the firmware on some other platform
> reports errors with a new type unknown to the GHES driver? Will the
> problem show up again?
Yes. GHES driver should give right feedback to ARCH code.
I mean apei_claim_sea() or ghes_notify_sea() doesn't return 0 if the error is unknown.
But it seems difficult to achieve this for current architecture of GHES driver.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaofei Tan <tanxiaofei@...wei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
>>
>> ---
>> Changes since v5:
>> - Do some changes following James's suggestions: 1) optimize commit log
>> 2) use err_info->length instead of err_info++' 3) some coding style
>> advice.
>>
>> Changes since v4:
>> - 1. Change the patch name from " ACPI / APEI: do memory failure on the
>> physical address reported by ARM processor error section" to this
>> more proper one.
>> - 2. Add a comment in the code to tell why not filter out corrected
>> error in an uncorrected section.
>>
>> Changes since v3:
>> - Print unhandled error following James Morse's advice.
>>
>> Changes since v2:
>> - Updated commit log
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> index fce7ade..0c8330e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> @@ -441,28 +441,35 @@ static void ghes_kick_task_work(struct callback_head *head)
>> gen_pool_free(ghes_estatus_pool, (unsigned long)estatus_node, node_len);
>> }
>>
>> -static bool ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata,
>> - int sev)
>> +static bool ghes_do_memory_failure(u64 physical_addr, int flags)
>> {
>> unsigned long pfn;
>> - int flags = -1;
>> - int sec_sev = ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
>> - struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>>
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_MEMORY_FAILURE))
>> return false;
>>
>> - if (!(mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA))
>> - return false;
>> -
>> - pfn = mem_err->physical_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + pfn = PHYS_PFN(physical_addr);
>> if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) {
>> pr_warn_ratelimited(FW_WARN GHES_PFX
>> "Invalid address in generic error data: %#llx\n",
>> - mem_err->physical_addr);
>> + physical_addr);
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> + memory_failure_queue(pfn, flags);
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata,
>> + int sev)
>> +{
>> + int flags = -1;
>> + int sec_sev = ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
>> + struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>> +
>> + if (!(mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> /* iff following two events can be handled properly by now */
>> if (sec_sev == GHES_SEV_CORRECTED &&
>> (gdata->flags & CPER_SEC_ERROR_THRESHOLD_EXCEEDED))
>> @@ -470,14 +477,56 @@ static bool ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata,
>> if (sev == GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE && sec_sev == GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE)
>> flags = 0;
>>
>> - if (flags != -1) {
>> - memory_failure_queue(pfn, flags);
>> - return true;
>> - }
>> + if (flags != -1)
>> + return ghes_do_memory_failure(mem_err->physical_addr, flags);
>>
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static bool ghes_handle_arm_hw_error(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev)
>> +{
>> + struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>> + bool queued = false;
>> + int sec_sev, i;
>> + char *p;
>> +
>> + log_arm_hw_error(err);
>> +
>> + sec_sev = ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
>> + if (sev != GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE || sec_sev != GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + p = (char *)(err + 1);
>> + for (i = 0; i < err->err_info_num; i++) {
>> + struct cper_arm_err_info *err_info = (struct cper_arm_err_info *)p;
>> + bool is_cache = (err_info->type == CPER_ARM_CACHE_ERROR);
>> + bool has_pa = (err_info->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDR);
>> + const char *error_type = "unknown error";
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The field (err_info->error_info & BIT(26)) is fixed to set to
>> + * 1 in some old firmware of HiSilicon Kunpeng920. We assume that
>> + * firmware won't mix corrected errors in an uncorrected section,
>> + * and don't filter out 'corrected' error here.
>> + */
>> + if (is_cache && has_pa) {
>> + queued = ghes_do_memory_failure(err_info->physical_fault_addr, 0);
>> + p += err_info->length;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (err_info->type < ARRAY_SIZE(cper_proc_error_type_strs))
>> + error_type = cper_proc_error_type_strs[err_info->type];
>> +
>> + pr_warn_ratelimited(FW_WARN GHES_PFX
>> + "Unhandled processor error type: %s\n",
>> + error_type);
>> + p += err_info->length;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return queued;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * PCIe AER errors need to be sent to the AER driver for reporting and
>> * recovery. The GHES severities map to the following AER severities and
>> @@ -605,9 +654,7 @@ static bool ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>> ghes_handle_aer(gdata);
>> }
>> else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
>> - struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>> -
>> - log_arm_hw_error(err);
>> + queued = ghes_handle_arm_hw_error(gdata, sev);
>> } else {
>> void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>>
>> --
>> 2.8.1
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists