linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 07/11] riscv: convert to generic entry

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: <YylqSsL6bdhIOMte@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:22:50 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, palmer@...osinc.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        luto@...nel.org, conor.dooley@...rochip.com, heiko@...ech.de,
        jszhang@...nel.org, lazyparser@...il.com, falcon@...ylab.org,
        chenhuacai@...nel.org, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
        atishp@...shpatra.org, palmer@...belt.com,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        zouyipeng@...wei.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 07/11] riscv: convert to generic entry

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:36:33PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:52:42AM -0400, guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -123,18 +126,22 @@ int handle_misaligned_store(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > >
> > >  asmlinkage void __trap_section do_trap_load_misaligned(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > >  {
> > > +     irqentry_state_t state = irqentry_enter(regs);
> > >       if (!handle_misaligned_load(regs))
> > >               return;
> > >       do_trap_error(regs, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRALN, regs->epc,
> > >                     "Oops - load address misaligned");
> > > +     irqentry_exit(regs, state);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  asmlinkage void __trap_section do_trap_store_misaligned(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > >  {
> > > +     irqentry_state_t state = irqentry_enter(regs);
> > >       if (!handle_misaligned_store(regs))
> > >               return;
> > >       do_trap_error(regs, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRALN, regs->epc,
> > >                     "Oops - store (or AMO) address misaligned");
> > > +     irqentry_exit(regs, state);
> > >  }
> > >  #endif
> > >  DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_store_fault,
> > > @@ -158,6 +165,8 @@ static inline unsigned long get_break_insn_length(unsigned long pc)
> > >
> > >  asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_break(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > >  {
> > > +     irqentry_state_t state = irqentry_enter(regs);
> > > +
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
> > >       if (kprobe_single_step_handler(regs))
> > >               return;
> >
> > FWIW; on x86 I've classified many of the 'from-kernel' traps as
> > NMI-like, since those traps can happen from any context, including with
> > IRQs disabled.
> The do_trap_break is for ebreak instruction, not NMI. RISC-V NMI has
> separate CSR. ref:
> 
> This proposal adds support for resumable non-maskable interrupts
> (RNMIs) to RISC-V. The extension adds four new CSRs (`mnepc`,
> `mncause`, `mnstatus`, and `mnscratch`) to hold the interrupted state,
> and a new instruction to resume from the RNMI handler.

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I've classified
'from-kernel' traps as NMI-like.

Consider:

	raw_spin_lock_irq(&foo);
	...
	<trap>

Then you want the trap to behave as if it were an NMI; that is abide by
the rules of NMI (strictly wait-free code).

So yes, they are not NMI, but they nest just like it, so we want the
handlers to abide by the same rules.

Does that make sense?

> >
> > The basic shape of the trap handlers looks a little like:
> >
> >         if (user_mode(regs)) {
> If nmi comes from user_mode, why we using
> irqenrty_enter/exit_from/to_user_mode instead of
> irqentry_nmi_enter/exit?

s/nmi/trap/ because the 'from-user' trap never nests inside kernel code.

Additionally, many 'from-user' traps want to do 'silly' things like send
signals, which is something that requires scheduling.

They're fundamentally different from 'from-kernel' traps, which per the
above, nest most dangerously.

> >                 irqenrty_enter_from_user_mode(regs);
> >                 do_user_trap();
> >                 irqentry_exit_to_user_mode(regs);
> >         } else {
> >                 irqentry_state_t state = irqentry_nmi_enter(regs);
> >                 do_kernel_trap();
> >                 irqentry_nmi_exit(regs, state);
> >         }
> >
> > Not saying you have to match Risc-V in this patch-set, just something to
> > consider.
> I think the shape of the riscv NMI handler looks a little like this:
> 
> asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_nmi(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
>                  irqentry_state_t state = irqentry_nmi_enter(regs);
>                  do_nmi_trap();
>                  irqentry_nmi_exit(regs, state);
> }

That is correct for the NMI handler; but here I'm specifically talking
about traps, like the unalign trap, break trap etc. Those that can
happen *anywhere* in kernel code and nest most unfortunate.