linux-kernel - Re: [Linux kernel bug] WARNING in static_key_slow_inc

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: <87ed95ykg7.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 21:39:36 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 x86@...nel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, peterz@...radead.org,
 jpoimboe@...nel.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ardb@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 hpa@...or.com, xrivendell7@...il.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux kernel bug] WARNING in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked

On Sun, Jun 09 2024 at 18:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 09 2024 at 18:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 09 2024 at 10:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> Well the bug is there to detect inconsistency and that clearly works :)
>>
>> But I clearly can't read, because the jump label operations are
>> serialized via jump_label_mutex. Hrm...
>
> Ok. Now I found if for real. It's in the jump label core:
>
> CPU0                            CPU1
>
> static_key_slow_dec()
>  static_key_slow_try_dec()
>
>    key->enabled == 1
>    val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
>    if (val == 1)
>    	return false;
>
>    jump_label_lock();
>    if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
>       --> key->enabled == 0
>       __jump_label_update()
>
>                                 static_key_slow_dec()
>                                  static_key_slow_try_dec()
>
>                                     key->enabled == 0
>                                     val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
>
>                                     --> key->enabled == -1 <- FAIL
>
> static_key_slow_try_dec() is buggy. It needs similar logic as
> static_key_slow_try_inc() to work correctly.
>
> It's not only the 0, key->enabled can be -1 when the other CPU is in the
> slow path of enabling it.
>
> I'll send a patch after testing it.

That's fixable, but it does not cure all of it.

set_attr_rdpmc() really needs serialization otherwise it can end up with
unbalanced operations.

CPU0                                    CPU1

x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc == 0

if (val != x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc) {
   if (val == 0)
   	...
   else if (x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc == 0)
     static_branch_dec(&rdpmc_never_available_key);

                                        if (val != x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc) {
                                           if (val == 0)
                                              	...
                                            else if (x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc == 0)
                               FAIL --->        static_branch_dec(&rdpmc_never_available_key);

No?