linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 1/3] ACPI: APEI: send SIGBUS to current task if synchronous memory error not recovered

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]

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:08:13 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <tanxiaofei@...wei.com>,
	<mawupeng1@...wei.com>, <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <will@...nel.org>, <jarkko@...nel.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <justin.he@....com>,
	<ardb@...nel.org>, <ying.huang@...el.com>, <ashish.kalra@....com>,
	<baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>,
	<robert.moore@...el.com>, <lvying6@...wei.com>, <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
	<zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/3] ACPI: APEI: send SIGBUS to current task if
 synchronous memory error not recovered

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:26:43 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:

> Shuai Xue wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2024/2/19 17:25, Borislav Petkov wrote:  
> > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 04:01:42PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:  
> > >> Synchronous error was detected as a result of user-space process accessing
> > >> a 2-bit uncorrected error. The CPU will take a synchronous error exception
> > >> such as Synchronous External Abort (SEA) on Arm64. The kernel will queue a
> > >> memory_failure() work which poisons the related page, unmaps the page, and
> > >> then sends a SIGBUS to the process, so that a system wide panic can be
> > >> avoided.
> > >>
> > >> However, no memory_failure() work will be queued when abnormal synchronous
> > >> errors occur. These errors can include situations such as invalid PA,
> > >> unexpected severity, no memory failure config support, invalid GUID
> > >> section, etc. In such case, the user-space process will trigger SEA again.
> > >> This loop can potentially exceed the platform firmware threshold or even
> > >> trigger a kernel hard lockup, leading to a system reboot.
> > >>
> > >> Fix it by performing a force kill if no memory_failure() work is queued
> > >> for synchronous errors.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 9 +++++++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> index 7b7c605166e0..0892550732d4 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> @@ -806,6 +806,15 @@ static bool ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
> > >>  		}
> > >>  	}
> > >>  
> > >> +	/*
> > >> +	 * If no memory failure work is queued for abnormal synchronous
> > >> +	 * errors, do a force kill.
> > >> +	 */
> > >> +	if (sync && !queued) {
> > >> +		pr_err("Sending SIGBUS to current task due to memory error not recovered");
> > >> +		force_sig(SIGBUS);
> > >> +	}  
> > > 
> > > Except that there are a bunch of CXL GUIDs being handled there too and
> > > this will sigbus those processes now automatically.  
> > 
> > Before the CXL GUIDs added, @Tony confirmed that the HEST notifications are always
> > asynchronous on x86 platform, so only Synchronous External Abort (SEA) on ARM is
> > delivered as a synchronous notification.
> > 
> > Will the CXL component trigger synchronous events for which we need to terminate the
> > current process by sending sigbus to process?  
> 
> None of the CXL component errors should be handled as synchronous
> events. They are either asynchronous protocol errors, or effectively
> equivalent to CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM notifications.

Not a good example, CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM is sometimes signaled via SEA.