| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527638BC2FD50C4D90508D578CAA2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:40:25 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lu Baolu
<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Fix potential soft lockup due to reclaim
> From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2024 2:17 AM
>
> From: Sanjay K Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>
>
> If qi_submit_sync() is invoked with 0 invalidation descriptors (for
> instance, for DMA draining purposes), we can run into a bug where a
> submitting thread fails to detect the completion of invalidation_wait.
> Subsequently, this led to a soft lockup.
>
> Suppose thread T1 invokes qi_submit_sync() with non-zero descriptors,
> while
> concurrently, thread T2 calls qi_submit_sync() with zero descriptors. Both
> threads then enter a while loop, waiting for their respective descriptors
> to complete. T1 detects its completion (i.e., T1's invalidation_wait status
> changes to QI_DONE by HW) and proceeds to call reclaim_free_desc() to
> reclaim all descriptors, potentially including adjacent ones of other
> threads that are also marked as QI_DONE.
>
> During this time, while T2 is waiting to acquire the qi->q_lock, the IOMMU
> hardware may complete the invalidation for T2, setting its status to
> QI_DONE. However, if T1's execution of reclaim_free_desc() frees T2's
> invalidation_wait descriptor and changes its status to QI_FREE, T2 will
> not observe the QI_DONE status for its invalidation_wait and will
> indefinitely remain stuck.
>
> This soft lockup does not occur when only non-zero descriptors are
> submitted.In such cases, invalidation descriptors are interspersed among
> wait descriptors with the status QI_IN_USE, acting as barriers. These
> barriers prevent the reclaim code from mistakenly freeing descriptors
> belonging to other submitters.
>
> Considered the following example timeline:
> T1 T2
> ========================================
> ID1
> WD1
> while(WD1!=QI_DONE)
> unlock
> lock
> WD1=QI_DONE* WD2
> while(WD2!=QI_DONE)
> unlock
> lock
> WD1==QI_DONE?
> ID1=QI_DONE WD2=DONE*
> reclaim()
> ID1=FREE
> WD1=FREE
> WD2=FREE
> unlock
> soft lockup! T2 never sees QI_DONE in WD2
>
> Where:
> ID = invalidation descriptor
> WD = wait descriptor
> * Written by hardware
>
> The root of the problem is that the descriptor status QI_DONE flag is used
> for two conflicting purposes:
> 1. signal a descriptor is ready for reclaim (to be freed)
> 2. signal by the hardware that a wait descriptor is complete
>
> The solution (in this patch) is state separation by introducing a new flag
> for the descriptors called QI_TO_BE_FREED.
>
> Once a thread's invalidation descriptors are complete, their status would
> be set to QI_TO_BE_FREED. The reclaim_free_desc() function would then
> only
> free descriptors marked as QI_TO_BE_FREED instead of those marked as
> QI_DONE. This change ensures that T2 (from the previous example) will
> correctly observe the completion of its invalidation_wait (marked as
> QI_DONE).
>
> Currently, there is no impact by this bug on the existing users because no
> callers are submitting invalidations with 0 descriptors.
bug fix is for existing users. Please revise the subject line and this msg
to make it clear that it's for preparation of a new usage.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sanjay K Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c | 13 +++++++++----
> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
> index 304e84949ca7..00e0f5f801c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
> @@ -1204,8 +1204,7 @@ static void free_iommu(struct intel_iommu
> *iommu)
> */
> static inline void reclaim_free_desc(struct q_inval *qi)
> {
> - while (qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] == QI_DONE ||
> - qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] == QI_ABORT) {
> + while (qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] == QI_TO_BE_FREED) {
> qi->desc_status[qi->free_tail] = QI_FREE;
> qi->free_tail = (qi->free_tail + 1) % QI_LENGTH;
> qi->free_cnt++;
> @@ -1463,8 +1462,14 @@ int qi_submit_sync(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
> struct qi_desc *desc,
> raw_spin_lock(&qi->q_lock);
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> - qi->desc_status[(index + i) % QI_LENGTH] = QI_DONE;
> + /*
> + * The reclaim code can free descriptors from multiple submissions
> + * starting from the tail of the queue. When count == 0, the
> + * status of the standalone wait descriptor at the tail of the queue
> + * must be set to QI_TO_BE_FREED to allow the reclaim code to
> proceed.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i <= count; i++)
> + qi->desc_status[(index + i) % QI_LENGTH] = QI_TO_BE_FREED;
We don't really need a new flag. Just set them to QI_FREE and then
reclaim QI_FREE slots until hitting qi->head in reclaim_free_desc().
>
> reclaim_free_desc(qi);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&qi->q_lock, flags);
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h
> index eaf015b4353b..1ab39f9145f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h
> @@ -382,7 +382,8 @@ enum {
> QI_FREE,
> QI_IN_USE,
> QI_DONE,
> - QI_ABORT
> + QI_ABORT,
> + QI_TO_BE_FREED
> };
>
> #define QI_CC_TYPE 0x1
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists