linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Replace this_cpu_* with raw_cpu_* in panic_bad

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 14:22:33 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Replace this_cpu_* with raw_cpu_* in
 panic_bad_stack()



On 2022/8/25 21:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 02:31:54PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The hardware automatically disable the IRQ interrupt before jumping to the
>> interrupt or exception vector. Therefore, the preempt_disable() operation
>> in this_cpu_read() after macro expansion is unnecessary. In fact, function
>> this_cpu_read() may trigger scheduling, see pseudocode below.
>>
>> Pseudocode of this_cpu_read(xx):
>> preempt_disable_notrace();
>> raw_cpu_read(xx);
>> if (unlikely(__preempt_count_dec_and_test()))
>> 	__preempt_schedule_notrace();
>>
>> Therefore, use raw_cpu_* instead of this_cpu_* to eliminate potential
>> hazards. At the very least, it reduces a few lines of assembly code.
> 
> I think if scheduling is a problem here, something should increment the
> preempt_count as is done on arm64, since any other operation in this function
> could end up causing preemption.

Yes, right. Sorry, I'm stuck in this_cpu_read()'s analysis.

> 
> Regardless, I also think it's sensible to use raw_cpu_*() here, but I don't
> think that actually fixes the problem the commit message describes.

OK, I will delete the description about risk. The risk I mentioned in the
commit message was mainly to show that using raw_cpu_read() would be better
than using this_cpu_read() in this case.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> KernelVersion: v6.0-rc2
>>  arch/arm/kernel/traps.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
>> index 1518a1f443ff866..d5903d790cf3b7e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -927,9 +927,9 @@ asmlinkage void handle_bad_stack(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long tsk_stk = (unsigned long)current->stack;
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IRQSTACKS
>> -	unsigned long irq_stk = (unsigned long)this_cpu_read(irq_stack_ptr);
>> +	unsigned long irq_stk = (unsigned long)raw_cpu_read(irq_stack_ptr);
>>  #endif
>> -	unsigned long ovf_stk = (unsigned long)this_cpu_read(overflow_stack_ptr);
>> +	unsigned long ovf_stk = (unsigned long)raw_cpu_read(overflow_stack_ptr);
>>  
>>  	console_verbose();
>>  	pr_emerg("Insufficient stack space to handle exception!");
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei