linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tty/sysrq: Make sysrq handler NMI aware

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: <CAFA6WYM77XTttu4H35PL7tkZxtBA8XaX23QW1UTBcESBE4V0fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 17:02:02 +0530
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tty/sysrq: Make sysrq handler NMI aware

Hi Doug,

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 23:36, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:45 PM Hitomi Hasegawa
> <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >  void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> >  {
> >         const struct sysrq_key_op *op_p;
> > @@ -573,6 +606,10 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> >         int orig_suppress_printk;
> >         int i;
> >
> > +       /* Skip sysrq handling if one already in progress */
> > +       if (sysrq_nmi_key != -1)
> > +               return;
>
> Should this give a warning?
>
> Also, can you remind me why this is safe if two CPUs both call
> handle_sysrq() at the same time? Can't both of them make it past this?
> That doesn't seem so great.
>
>
> > @@ -596,7 +633,13 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> >                 if (!check_mask || sysrq_on_mask(op_p->enable_mask)) {
> >                         pr_info("%s\n", op_p->action_msg);
> >                         console_loglevel = orig_log_level;
> > -                       op_p->handler(key);
> > +
> > +                       if (in_nmi() && !op_p->nmi_safe) {
> > +                               sysrq_nmi_key = key;
> > +                               irq_work_queue(&sysrq_irq_work);
>
> It looks like irq_work_queue() returns false if it fails to queue.
> Maybe it's worth checking and setting "sysrq_nmi_key" back to -1 if it
> fails?

Thanks for your comments. I hope v4 here [1] addresses all of them.
Please have a look again.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/3/7/1059

-Sumit