linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: google: Test spinlock on panic path to avoid lockups

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: <YxDVPqVkdgQbAIvY@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:52:30 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, evgreen@...omium.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...ccoli.net, ardb@...nel.org,
        davidgow@...gle.com, jwerner@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: google: Test spinlock on panic path to
 avoid lockups

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:50:59PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Currently the gsmi driver registers a panic notifier as well as
> reboot and die notifiers. The callbacks registered are called in
> atomic and very limited context - for instance, panic disables
> preemption and local IRQs, also all secondary CPUs (not executing
> the panic path) are shutdown.
> 
> With that said, taking a spinlock in this scenario is a dangerous
> invitation for lockup scenarios. So, fix that by checking if the
> spinlock is free to acquire in the panic notifier callback - if not,
> bail-out and avoid a potential hang.
> 
> Fixes: 74c5b31c6618 ("driver: Google EFI SMI")
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Cc: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
> ---
> 
> 
> This is a re-submission of the patch - it was in a series [0], but
> Greg suggested me to resubmit individually in order it gets picked
> by the relevant maintainers, instead of asking them to merge
> individual patches from a series. Notice I've trimmed a bit the CC
> list, it was bigger due to the patch being in a series...
> 
> This is truly the V3 of the patch, below is the diff between versions:
> 
> V3:
> - added Evan's review tag - thanks!
> 
> V2:
> - do not use spin_trylock anymore, to avoid messing with
> non-panic paths; now we just check the spinlock state in
> the panic notifier before taking it. Thanks Evan for the review!
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220719195325.402745-4-gpiccoli@igalia.com/
> 
> 
>  drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c b/drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c
> index adaa492c3d2d..3ef5f3c0b4e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/google/gsmi.c
> @@ -681,6 +681,14 @@ static struct notifier_block gsmi_die_notifier = {
>  static int gsmi_panic_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
>  			       unsigned long reason, void *arg)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * Perform the lock check before effectively trying
> +	 * to acquire it on gsmi_shutdown_reason() to avoid
> +	 * potential lockups in atomic context.
> +	 */
> +	if (spin_is_locked(&gsmi_dev.lock))
> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +

What happens if the lock is grabbed right after testing for it?
Shouldn't you use lockdep_assert_held() instead as the documentation
says to?


>  	gsmi_shutdown_reason(GSMI_SHUTDOWN_PANIC);

You are grabbing the lock way in this call, again, you have a window
where the check above would not have worked :(

I don't think this is fixing anything properly, sorry.

greg k-h