linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Fix /proc/cpuinfo cpumask warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:42:15 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Fix /proc/cpuinfo cpumask warning


Adding more people and lists to CC in order to point this patch out,
because, based on a quick grep of cpuinfo seq operations, I think at least
openrisc, powerpc, and s390 also need an equivalent patch (and I've
already sent a patch for riscv). While the test is simple (see next
paragraph) I'm not equipped to test on each architecture.

To test, just build a kernel with DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS enabled, boot to a
shell, do 'cat /proc/cpuinfo', and look for a kernel warning.

Thanks,
drew

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:19:05AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Commit 78e5a3399421 ("cpumask: fix checking valid cpu range") has
> > started issuing warnings[*] when cpu indices equal to nr_cpu_ids - 1
> > are passed to cpumask_next* functions. seq_read_iter() and cpuinfo's
> > start and next seq operations implement a pattern like
> > 
> >   n = cpumask_next(n - 1, mask);
> >   show(n);
> >   while (1) {
> >       ++n;
> >       n = cpumask_next(n - 1, mask);
> >       if (n >= nr_cpu_ids)
> >           break;
> >       show(n);
> >   }
> > 
> > which will issue the warning when reading /proc/cpuinfo. Ensure no
> > warning is generated by validating the cpu index before calling
> > cpumask_next().
> > 
> > [*] Warnings will only appear with DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS enabled.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> > Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> Forgot the changelog...
> 
> v2:
>   - Added all the information I should have in the first place to the
>     commit message [Boris]
>   - Changed style of fix [Boris]
> 
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > index 099b6f0d96bd..94ac02c8dd6f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > @@ -153,6 +153,9 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  
> >  static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> >  {
> > +	if (*pos >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> >  	*pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> >  	if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
> >  		return &cpu_data(*pos);
> > -- 
> > 2.37.3
> >