linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: Use trylock in __register_nmi_handler() when in

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: <87ttbqvuyt.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:57:30 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave
 Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: Use trylock in __register_nmi_handler() when
 in_nmi()

On Thu, Nov 28 2024 at 20:55, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/28/24 8:06 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>> On 11/28/24 4:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 06:34:55PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> The __register_nmi_handler() function can be called in NMI context from
>>>> nmi_shootdown_cpus() leading to a lockdep splat like the following.
>>> This seems fundamentally insane. Why are we okay with this?
>>
>> According to the functional comment of nmi_shootdown_cpus(),
>>
>>  * nmi_shootdown_cpus() can only be invoked once. After the first
>>  * invocation all other CPUs are stuck in crash_nmi_callback() and
>>  * cannot respond to a second NMI.
>>
>> That is why it has to insert the crash_nmi_callback() call with 
>> register_nmi_handler() here in the NMI context. Changing this will 
>> require a fundamental redesign of the way this shutdown process need 
>> to be handled and I am not knowledgeable enough to do that. I will 
>> certainly appreciate idea to handle it in a more graceful way.
>
> One idea that I current have is to add a emergency callback pointer to 
> the nmi_desc structure which, if set, has priority over the handlers in 
> the linked list and will be called first. In this way, 
> nmi_shootdown_cpus() can set the pointer to point to 
> crash_nmi_callback() without the need to take a lock and insert another 
> handler at the front of the list. Please let me know if this idea is 
> acceptable or not.

That's way more sane.