linux-kernel - Re: [bug report] x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for split lockers

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]

Message-ID: <05e44249-8686-4e0d-856d-46a344127589@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:33:31 -0600
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.com>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug report] x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for split
 lockers

+Joerg

On 11/28/23 11:40, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:12:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> Hello Tony Luck,
>>
>> The patch b041b525dab9: "x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for
>> split lockers" from Mar 10, 2022 (linux-next), leads to the following
>> Smatch static checker warning:
>>
>> 	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c:1179 split_lock_warn()
>> 	warn: sleeping in atomic context
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
>>      1158 static void split_lock_warn(unsigned long ip)
>>      1159 {
>>      1160         struct delayed_work *work;
>>      1161         int cpu;
>>      1162
>>      1163         if (!current->reported_split_lock)
>>      1164                 pr_warn_ratelimited("#AC: %s/%d took a split_lock trap at address: 0x%lx\n",
>>      1165                                     current->comm, current->pid, ip);
>>      1166         current->reported_split_lock = 1;
>>      1167
>>      1168         if (sysctl_sld_mitigate) {
>>      1169                 /*
>>      1170                  * misery factor #1:
>>      1171                  * sleep 10ms before trying to execute split lock.
>>      1172                  */
>>      1173                 if (msleep_interruptible(10) > 0)
>>      1174                         return;
>>      1175                 /*
>>      1176                  * Misery factor #2:
>>      1177                  * only allow one buslocked disabled core at a time.
>>      1178                  */
>> --> 1179                 if (down_interruptible(&buslock_sem) == -EINTR)
>>      1180                         return;
>>      1181                 work = &sl_reenable_unlock;
>>      1182         } else {
>>      1183                 work = &sl_reenable;
>>      1184         }
>>      1185
>>      1186         cpu = get_cpu();
>>      1187         schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, work, 2);
>>      1188
>>      1189         /* Disable split lock detection on this CPU to make progress */
>>      1190         sld_update_msr(false);
>>      1191         put_cpu();
>>      1192 }
>>
>> The call tree is:
>>
>> kernel_exc_vmm_communication() <- disables preempt
>> -> vc_raw_handle_exception()
>>     -> vc_forward_exception()
>>        -> exc_alignment_check()
>>           -> __exc_alignment_check()
>>              -> handle_user_split_lock()
>>                 -> split_lock_warn()
>>
>> I think maybe the mismatch is that kernel_exc_vmm_communication() calls
>> irqentry_nmi_enter(regs); which disable preemption but exc_alignment_check()
>> does local_irq_enable() which doesn't enable it.
> 
> I think we need some arch/x86/kernel/sev.c expertise to explain the
> preemption requirements in that stack trace. Adding Tom Lendacky.

Adding Joerg as the original developer of this code.

I believe that irqentry_nmi_enter() is used so that we are ensured that 
the kernel can't be interrupted while using the per-CPU GHCB when entered 
from kernel-mode in order to avoid nested #VCs (except for an NMI). Joerg 
might have further insights since there was a lot of discussion around 
these changes.

I'm not sure if is possible, but I wonder if irqentry_nmi_exit() can be 
issued before forwarding the exception - or even delay forwarding the 
exception until after irqentry_nmi_exit().

Thanks,
Tom

> 
>> Also why does arch/x86 not have a dedicated mailing list?
> 
> Good question. X86 was once the default architecture. So everything went to
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org. I'll add that to Cc: for this. But maybe
> it's time for an x86 specific list?
> 
>> regards,
>> dan carpenter
> 
> -Tony