linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tty/sysrq: replace smp_processor_id() with get

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: <b4451119-9ab8-455f-b964-e54a1be21ea2@collabora.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:34:38 +0500
From:   Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
        kernel@...labora.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty/sysrq: replace smp_processor_id() with get_cpu()

On 8/23/23 4:06 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 8/22/23 6:24 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 03:26:06PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>> The smp_processor_id() shouldn't be called from preemptible code.
>>> Instead use get_cpu() and put_cpu() which disables preemption in
>>> addition to getting the processor id. This fixes the following bug:
>>>
>>> [  119.143590] sysrq: Show backtrace of all active CPUs
>>> [  119.143902] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: bash/873
>>> [  119.144586] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
>>> [  119.144827] CPU: 6 PID: 873 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.10.124-dirty #3
>>> [  119.144861] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS 2023.05-1 07/22/2023
>>> [  119.145053] Call trace:
>>> [  119.145093]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a0
>>> [  119.145122]  show_stack+0x18/0x70
>>> [  119.145141]  dump_stack+0xc4/0x11c
>>> [  119.145159]  check_preemption_disabled+0x100/0x110
>>> [  119.145175]  debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
>>> [  119.145195]  sysrq_handle_showallcpus+0x20/0xc0
>>> [  119.145211]  __handle_sysrq+0x8c/0x1a0
>>> [  119.145227]  write_sysrq_trigger+0x94/0x12c
>>> [  119.145247]  proc_reg_write+0xa8/0xe4
>>> [  119.145266]  vfs_write+0xec/0x280
>>> [  119.145282]  ksys_write+0x6c/0x100
>>> [  119.145298]  __arm64_sys_write+0x20/0x30
>>> [  119.145315]  el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x78/0x1e4
>>> [  119.145332]  do_el0_svc+0x24/0x8c
>>> [  119.145348]  el0_svc+0x10/0x20
>>> [  119.145364]  el0_sync_handler+0x134/0x140
>>> [  119.145381]  el0_sync+0x180/0x1c0
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Fixes: 47cab6a722d4 ("debug lockups: Improve lockup detection, fix generic arch fallback")This commit had introduced the smp_processor_id() function in
> sysrq_handle_showallcpus().
> 
>>
>> How has this never shown up before now?  What changed to cause this to
>> now be triggered?  This feels odd that no one has seen this in the past
>> 20+ years :(
> Not sure. Probably the combination of reproduction has happened now. The
> following three conditions are needed for the warning to appear:
> * Enable CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> * Arch which doesn't define arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace such as arm64
> * Trigger showallcpu's stack sysrqAny thoughts?

> 
>>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - Add changelog and resend
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - Add "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" tag
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/tty/sysrq.c | 3 ++-
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
>>> index 23198e3f1461a..6b4a28bcf2f5f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
>>> @@ -262,13 +262,14 @@ static void sysrq_handle_showallcpus(u8 key)
>>>  		if (in_hardirq())
>>>  			regs = get_irq_regs();
>>>  
>>> -		pr_info("CPU%d:\n", smp_processor_id());
>>> +		pr_info("CPU%d:\n", get_cpu());
>>>  		if (regs)
>>>  			show_regs(regs);
>>>  		else
>>>  			show_stack(NULL, NULL, KERN_INFO);
>>>  
>>>  		schedule_work(&sysrq_showallcpus);
>>> +		put_cpu();
>>
>> Why are you putting the cpu _after_ you schedule the work?
> The sysrq_showallcpus work prints stack traces on all CPUs other than the
> current CPU. So we are re-enabling preemption after scheduling work from
> current CPU. So that it doesn't get changed.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
> 

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum