linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] riscv: asid: Fixup stale TLB entry cause application crash

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

Message-ID: <CAJF2gTRKtWPP18kmU+50npg4h33-Hr3aUUQKcyx416jTvMUWzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 08:30:16 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, anup@...infault.org,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        conor.dooley@...rochip.com, heiko@...ech.de,
        philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] riscv: asid: Fixup stale TLB entry cause
 application crash

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 6:27 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8 November 2022 10:20:44 GMT, guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> >From: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >
> >After use_asid_allocator enabled, the userspace application will
> >crash for stale tlb entry. Because only using cpumask_clear_cpu without
> >local_flush_tlb_all couldn't guarantee CPU's tlb entries fresh. Then
> >set_mm_asid would cause user space application get a stale value by
> >the stale tlb entry, but set_mm_noasid is okay.
> >
> >Here is the symptom of the bug:
> >unhandled signal 11 code 0x1 (coredump)
> >   0x0000003fd6d22524 <+4>:     auipc   s0,0x70
> >   0x0000003fd6d22528 <+8>:     ld      s0,-148(s0) # 0x3fd6d92490
> >=> 0x0000003fd6d2252c <+12>:    ld      a5,0(s0)
> >(gdb) i r s0
> >s0          0x8082ed1cc3198b21       0x8082ed1cc3198b21
> >(gdb) x/16 0x3fd6d92490
> >0x3fd6d92490:   0xd80ac8a8      0x0000003f
> >The core dump file shows that the value of register s0 is wrong, but the
> >value in memory is right. This is because 'ld s0, -148(s0)' use a stale
> >mapping entry in TLB and got a wrong value from a stale physical
> >address.
> >
> >When task run on CPU0, the task loaded/speculative-loaded the value of
> >address(0x3fd6d92490), and the first version of tlb mapping entry was
> >PTWed into CPU0's tlb.
> >When the task switched from CPU0 to CPU1 without local_tlb_flush_all
> >(because of asid), the task happened to write a value on address
> >(0x3fd6d92490). It caused do_page_fault -> wp_page_copy ->
> >ptep_clear_flush -> ptep_get_and_clear & flush_tlb_page.
> >The flush_tlb_page used mm_cpumask(mm) to determine which CPUs need
> >tlb flush, but CPU0 had cleared the CPU0's mm_cpumask in previous switch_mm.
> >So we only flushed the CPU1 tlb, and setted second version mapping
> >of the pte. When the task switch from CPU1 to CPU0 again, CPU0 still used a
> >stale tlb mapping entry which contained a wrong target physical address.
> >When the task happened to read that value, the bug would be raised.
> >
> >Fixes: 65d4b9c53017 ("RISC-V: Implement ASID allocator")
> >Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
> >Cc: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
> >Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
> >---
> > arch/riscv/mm/context.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/context.c b/arch/riscv/mm/context.c
> >index 7acbfbd14557..8ad6c2493e93 100644
> >--- a/arch/riscv/mm/context.c
> >+++ b/arch/riscv/mm/context.c
> >@@ -317,7 +317,9 @@ void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> >        */
> >       cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >
> >-      cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
> >+      if (!static_branch_unlikely(&use_asid_allocator))
> >+              cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
> >+
> >       cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
> >
> >       set_mm(next, cpu);
>
> This is a completely different patch to what you already sent. Why have you marked it RESEND rather than v2?
Okay, I should send v2.



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren