linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Disable barrier batching in interrupt contexts

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: <8d4e66ef-a292-45ff-9c4a-0248aff44fd3@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 10:29:17 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
 Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
 Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 syzbot+5c0d9392e042f41d45c5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Disable barrier batching in interrupt contexts

On 13/05/2025 21:46, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:22:40AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Commit 5fdd05efa1cd ("arm64/mm: Batch barriers when updating kernel
>> mappings") enabled arm64 kernels to track "lazy mmu mode" using TIF
>> flags in order to defer barriers until exiting the mode. At the same
>> time, it added warnings to check that pte manipulations were never
>> performed in interrupt context, because the tracking implementation
>> could not deal with nesting.
>>
>> But it turns out that some debug features (e.g. KFENCE, DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)
>> do manipulate ptes in softirq context, which triggered the warnings.
> 
> Hmm. Do we also have to worry about the case where a softirq is triggered
> off the back of a hardirq *and* that hardirq is taken while we're in the
> middle of e.g. queue_pte_barriers()? In that case, I think we can end
> up in strange situations, such as having LAZY_MMU_PENDING set when
> LAZY_MMU is clear, although it looks like things still work even in that
> case.

I don't see any problem here. This change ensures that we always behave the
"old" way in interrupt context. So the interrupt context will never even look at
those TIF flags, so it doesn't matter that the task context is midway through
changing the flags when the interrupt comes in.

(although somehow I feel like I should be bracing for a zinger :)

Thanks,
Ryan

> 
> Will