linux-kernel - Re: [STABLE REGRESSION] Possible missing backport of x86_match

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: <2024091900-unimpeded-catalyst-b09f@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:19:27 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "regressions@...mhuis.info" <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
	"Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"Gupta, Pawan Kumar" <pawan.kumar.gupta@...el.com>,
	"regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"thomas.lindroth@...il.com" <thomas.lindroth@...il.com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [STABLE REGRESSION] Possible missing backport of x86_match_cpu()
 change in v6.1.96

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 06:54:33AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 14:11 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 10:15:23AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > [CCing the x86 folks, Greg, and the regressions list]
> > > 
> > > Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker.
> > > 
> > > On 30.07.24 18:41, Thomas Lindroth wrote:
> > > > I upgraded from kernel 6.1.94 to 6.1.99 on one of my machines and
> > > > noticed that
> > > > the dmesg line "Incomplete global flushes, disabling PCID" had
> > > > disappeared from
> > > > the log.
> > > 
> > > Thomas, thx for the report. FWIW, mainline developers like the x86
> > > folks
> > > or Tony are free to focus on mainline and leave stable/longterm
> > > series
> > > to other people -- some nevertheless help out regularly or
> > > occasionally.
> > > So with a bit of luck this mail will make one of them care enough
> > > to
> > > provide a 6.1 version of what you afaics called the "existing fix"
> > > in
> > > mainline (2eda374e883ad2 ("x86/mm: Switch to new Intel CPU model
> > > defines") [v6.10-rc1]) that seems to be missing in 6.1.y. But if
> > > not I
> > > suspect it might be up to you to prepare and submit a 6.1.y variant
> > > of
> > > that fix, as you seem to care and are able to test the patch.
> > 
> > Needs to go to 6.6.y first, right?  But even then, it does not apply
> > to
> > 6.1.y cleanly, so someone needs to send a backported (and tested)
> > series
> > to us at stable@...r.kernel.org and we will be glad to queue them up
> > then.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> There are three commits involved.
> 
> commit A:
>    4db64279bc2b (""x86/cpu: Switch to new Intel CPU model defines"") 
>    This commit replaces
>       X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ANY, 1),             /* SNC */
>    with
>       X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ANY,         1),    /* SNC */
>    This is a functional change because the family info is replaced with
> 0. And this exposes a x86_match_cpu() problem that it breaks when the
> vendor/family/model/stepping/feature fields are all zeros.
> 
> commit B:
>    93022482b294 ("x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
> X86_VENDOR_INTEL")
>    It addresses the x86_match_cpu() problem by introducing a valid flag
> and set the flag in the Intel CPU model defines.
>    This fixes commit A, but it actually breaks the x86_cpu_id
> structures that are constructed without using the Intel CPU model
> defines, like arch/x86/mm/init.c.
> 
> commit C:
>    2eda374e883a ("x86/mm: Switch to new Intel CPU model defines")
>    arch/x86/mm/init.c: broke by commit B but fixed by using the new
> Intel CPU model defines
> 
> In 6.1.99,
> commit A is missing
> commit B is there
> commit C is missing
> 
> In 6.6.50,
> commit A is missing
> commit B is there
> commit C is missing
> 
> Now we can fix the problem in stable kernel, by converting
> arch/x86/mm/init.c to use the CPU model defines (even the old style
> ones). But before that, I'm wondering if we need to backport commit B
> in 6.1 and 6.6 stable kernel because only commit A can expose this
> problem.

If so, can you submit the needed backports for us to apply?  That's the
easiest way for us to take them, thanks.

greg k-h