linux-kernel - Re: [PowerPC][linux-next-6.11-rc7-20240910] Kernel Warnings at kernel/jump

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: <20240911094925.GQ4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:49:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PowerPC][linux-next-6.11-rc7-20240910] Kernel Warnings at
 kernel/jump_label.c:266

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:33:01PM +0530, Venkat Rao Bagalkote wrote:
> Greetings!!!
> 
> 
> I am observing kernel warnings while booting with
> linux-next-6.11-rc7-20240910 kernel. Below are the warnings.
> 

> 
> Issue is introduced by the commit: de752774f38bb766941ed1bf910ba5a9f6cc6bf7

That commit is now gone and should be replaced with the below on the
next next.

---
commit 1d7f856c2ca449f04a22d876e36b464b7a9d28b6
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date:   Mon Sep 9 12:50:09 2024 +0200

    jump_label: Fix static_key_slow_dec() yet again
    
    While commit 83ab38ef0a0b ("jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in
    static_key_slow_dec()") fixed one problem, it created yet another,
    notably the following is now possible:
    
      slow_dec
        if (try_dec) // dec_not_one-ish, false
        // enabled == 1
                                    slow_inc
                                      if (inc_not_disabled) // inc_not_zero-ish
                                      // enabled == 2
                                        return
    
        guard((mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
        if (atomic_cmpxchg(1,0)==1) // false, we're 2
    
                                    slow_dec
                                      if (try-dec) // dec_not_one, true
                                      // enabled == 1
                                        return
        else
          try_dec() // dec_not_one, false
          WARN
    
    Use dec_and_test instead of cmpxchg(), like it was prior to
    83ab38ef0a0b. Add a few WARNs for the paranoid.
    
    Fixes: 83ab38ef0a0b ("jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in static_key_slow_dec()")
    Reported-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
    Tested-by: Klara Modin <klarasmodin@...il.com>
    Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>

diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 6dc76b590703..93a822d3c468 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ bool static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 		jump_label_update(key);
 		/*
 		 * Ensure that when static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled() or
-		 * static_key_slow_try_dec() observe the positive value,
+		 * static_key_dec_not_one() observe the positive value,
 		 * they must also observe all the text changes.
 		 */
 		atomic_set_release(&key->enabled, 1);
@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ void static_key_disable(struct static_key *key)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_disable);
 
-static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
+static bool static_key_dec_not_one(struct static_key *key)
 {
 	int v;
 
@@ -274,6 +274,14 @@ static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
 		 * enabled. This suggests an ordering problem on the user side.
 		 */
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(v < 0);
+
+		/*
+		 * Warn about underflow, and lie about success in an attempt to
+		 * not make things worse.
+		 */
+		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(v == 0))
+			return true;
+
 		if (v <= 1)
 			return false;
 	} while (!likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, &v, v - 1)));
@@ -284,15 +292,27 @@ static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
 static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 {
 	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
+	int val;
 
-	if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
+	if (static_key_dec_not_one(key))
 		return;
 
 	guard(mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
-	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0) == 1)
+	val = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
+	/*
+	 * It should be impossible to observe -1 with jump_label_mutex held,
+	 * see static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked().
+	 */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(val == -1))
+		return;
+	/*
+	 * Cannot already be 0, something went sideways.
+	 */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(val == 0))
+		return;
+
+	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled))
 		jump_label_update(key);
-	else
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_key_slow_try_dec(key));
 }
 
 static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key)
@@ -329,7 +349,7 @@ void __static_key_slow_dec_deferred(struct static_key *key,
 {
 	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
 
-	if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
+	if (static_key_dec_not_one(key))
 		return;
 
 	schedule_delayed_work(work, timeout);