| 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: <YqxBd9GfUHLWZWoh@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:55:19 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 6/8] arm64: add support for machine check error
safe
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 06:50:54AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> During the processing of arm64 kernel hardware memory errors(do_sea()), if
> the errors is consumed in the kernel, the current processing is panic.
> However, it is not optimal.
>
> Take uaccess for example, if the uaccess operation fails due to memory
> error, only the user process will be affected, kill the user process
> and isolate the user page with hardware memory errors is a better choice.
>
> This patch only enable machine error check framework, it add exception
> fixup before kernel panic in do_sea() and only limit the consumption of
> hardware memory errors in kernel mode triggered by user mode processes.
> If fixup successful, panic can be avoided.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/mm/extable.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index aaeb70358979..a3b12ff0cd7f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ config ARM64
> select ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK if PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2
> select ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION if TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> select ARCH_HAS_CACHE_LINE_SIZE
> + select ARCH_HAS_COPY_MC if ACPI_APEI_GHES
> select ARCH_HAS_CURRENT_STACK_POINTER
> select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VIRTUAL
> select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h
> index 72b0e71cc3de..f80ebd0addfd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h
> @@ -46,4 +46,5 @@ bool ex_handler_bpf(const struct exception_table_entry *ex,
> #endif /* !CONFIG_BPF_JIT */
>
> bool fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs);
> +bool fixup_exception_mc(struct pt_regs *regs);
> #endif
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> index 228d681a8715..c301dcf6335f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>
> #include <asm/asm-extable.h>
> #include <asm/ptrace.h>
> +#include <asm/esr.h>
>
> static inline unsigned long
> get_ex_fixup(const struct exception_table_entry *ex)
> @@ -76,3 +77,19 @@ bool fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> BUG();
> }
> +
> +bool fixup_exception_mc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + const struct exception_table_entry *ex;
> +
> + ex = search_exception_tables(instruction_pointer(regs));
> + if (!ex)
> + return false;
> +
> + /*
> + * This is not complete, More Machine check safe extable type can
> + * be processed here.
> + */
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index c5e11768e5c1..b262bd282a89 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -696,6 +696,29 @@ static int do_bad(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> return 1; /* "fault" */
> }
>
> +static bool arm64_do_kernel_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
> + struct pt_regs *regs, int sig, int code)
> +{
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_COPY_MC))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (user_mode(regs) || !current->mm)
> + return false;
What's the `!current->mm` check for?
> +
> + if (apei_claim_sea(regs) < 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!fixup_exception_mc(regs))
> + return false;
I thought we still wanted to signal the task in this case? Or do you expect to
add that into `fixup_exception_mc()` ?
> +
> + set_thread_esr(0, esr);
Why are we not setting the address? Is that deliberate, or an oversight?
> +
> + arm64_force_sig_fault(sig, code, addr,
> + "Uncorrected hardware memory error in kernel-access\n");
I think the wording here is misleading since we don't expect to recover from
accesses to kernel memory, and would be better as something like:
"Uncorrected memory error on access to user memory\n"
Thanks,
Mark.
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int do_sea(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> const struct fault_info *inf;
> @@ -721,7 +744,9 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> */
> siaddr = untagged_addr(far);
> }
> - arm64_notify_die(inf->name, regs, inf->sig, inf->code, siaddr, esr);
> +
> + if (!arm64_do_kernel_sea(siaddr, esr, regs, inf->sig, inf->code))
> + arm64_notify_die(inf->name, regs, inf->sig, inf->code, siaddr, esr);
>
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists