[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5bdea6c767d3a8260360afaddab5f7c@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:50:15 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: spectre-v2: fix smp_processor_id() warning
On 2022-06-22 07:49, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot complains smp_processor_id() from harden_branch_predictor()
> from page fault path [1]. Explicitly disable preemption and use
> raw_smp_processor_id().
>
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=a7ee43e564223f195c84 [1]
> Reported-by: syzbot
> <syzbot+a7ee43e564223f195c84@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
> Fixes: f5fe12b1eaee220c ("ARM: spectre-v2: harden user aborts in kernel
> space")
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> This patch is completely untested.
>
> arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
> b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
> index 98b37340376b..a92446769acd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
> @@ -20,8 +20,11 @@ typedef void (*harden_branch_predictor_fn_t)(void);
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(harden_branch_predictor_fn_t,
> harden_branch_predictor_fn);
> static inline void harden_branch_predictor(void)
> {
> - harden_branch_predictor_fn_t fn = per_cpu(harden_branch_predictor_fn,
> - smp_processor_id());
> + harden_branch_predictor_fn_t fn;
> +
> + preempt_disable_notrace();
> + fn = per_cpu(harden_branch_predictor_fn, raw_smp_processor_id());
> + preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace();
> if (fn)
> fn();
> }
I don't think that's required.
harden_branch_predictor() is always called on the fault path,
from __do_user_fault(), and that's always non-preemptible.
My hunch is that we're missing some tracking that indicates
to the kernel that we're already non-preemptible by virtue
of being in an exception handler.
Russell, what do you think?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists