linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3 5/7] x86/smp: Cure kexec() vs. mwait_play

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: <87bkha8gmr.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:25:48 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 5/7] x86/smp: Cure kexec() vs. mwait_play_dead()
 breakage

On Tue, Jun 20 2023 at 11:23, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:33:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TLDR: It's a mess.
>>  	while (1) {
>> @@ -1824,10 +1836,57 @@ static inline void mwait_play_dead(void)
>
> JFYI: that last hunk has some conflicts applying to latest tip/master.
> Might need merge resolving...

Yes, I know.

>> +/*
>> + * Kick all "offline" CPUs out of mwait on kexec(). See comment in
>> + * mwait_play_dead().
>> + */
>> +void smp_kick_mwait_play_dead(void)
>> +{
>> +	u32 newstate = CPUDEAD_MWAIT_KEXEC_HLT;
>
> Do you even need this newstate thing?

Yes, for two reasons:

  1) To explicitely tell the other CPU to go into HLT. MWAIT can resume
     execution due to SMIs or NMIs, so we don't want to go them into HLT
     unconditionally. TLD; .... :)

  2) Two have the state feedback from the other CPU.

>> +
>> +		if (READ_ONCE(md->status) != newstate)
>> +			pr_err("CPU%u is stuck in mwait_play_dead()\n", cpu);
>
> Shouldn't this be a pr_err_once thing so that it doesn't flood the
> console unnecessarily?

Yes, no, do not know :)