linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] arm64: kgdb: Roundup cpus using the debug IPI

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: <ZNDR9C8711K5EoNW@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:13:56 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, ito-yuichi@...itsu.com,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] arm64: kgdb: Roundup cpus using the debug IPI

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:08:06PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2023-08-07 11:54, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 2023-08-07 11:28, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:31:51PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > > From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's use the debug IPI for rounding up CPUs in kgdb. When the debug
> > > > > IPI is backed by an NMI (or pseudo NMI) then this will let us debug
> > > > > even hard locked CPUs. When the debug IPI isn't backed by an NMI then
> > > > > this won't really have any huge benefit but it will still work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v9:
> > > > > - Remove fallback for when debug IPI isn't available.
> > > > > - Renamed "NMI IPI" to "debug IPI" since it might not be backed by
> > > > > NMI.
> > > > >
> > > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/ipi_debug.c |  5 +++++
> > > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c      | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > This looks fine to me, but I'd feel a bit happier if we had separate
> > > > SGIs for
> > > > the backtrace and the KGDB callback as they're logically unrelated.
> > > 
> > > Well, we're a bit stuck here.
> > > 
> > > We have exactly *one* spare SGI with GICv3, as we lose 8 of them
> > > to the secure side. One possibility would be to mux some of the
> > > lesser used IPIs onto two SGIs (one with standard priority, and
> > > one with NMI priority).
> > 
> > Understood; Doug and I suggested two options for that:
> > 
> > 1) Unify/mux the IPI_CPU_STOP and IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP IPIs
> > 
> >    The only *intended* difference between the two is that
> > IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP
> >    calls crash_save_cpu() before trying to stop the CPU, but the
> >    implementations have diverged significantly for unrelated reasons.
> > 
> > 2) Remove IPI_WAKEUP
> > 
> >    We only use IPI_WAKEUP for the ACPI parking protocol, and we could
> > reuse
> >    another IPI (e.g. IPI_RESCHEDULE) to achieve the same thing witout a
> >    dedicated IPI.
> 
> Sure. My concern is that we're papering over the fundamental problem,
> which is that IPIs are limited resource, and that we're bound to pile
> more stuff on them.
> 
> I'm all for reclaiming the ones that can be merged, but we may ultimately
> need a real fix for this.

Sure; I will bear that in mind.

Thanks,
Mark.