linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark kernel as tainted on SError panic

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: <dswbcfrlrrhikpjjrr2aluipb7qn4stfmrept27nr2b4egeg3x@pgt73zwmfm7x>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:09:32 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, 
	osandov@...com, leo.yan@....com, rmikey@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark kernel as tainted on SError panic

On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 03:02:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 05:26:43AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 11:46:06PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:46:35AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > 
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> > > > @@ -931,6 +931,7 @@ void __noreturn panic_bad_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr, unsigne
> > > >  
> > > >  void __noreturn arm64_serror_panic(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > > >  	console_verbose();
> > > >  
> > > >  	pr_crit("SError Interrupt on CPU%d, code 0x%016lx -- %s\n",
> > > 
> > > If we're going to taint for SError, shouldn't we also taint for an
> > > unclaimed SEA?
> > 
> > Yes. I was not very familiar with SEA errors, given I haven't seen on in
> > production yet, but, reading about it, that is another seems to crash
> > the system due to hardware errors, thus, we want to taint MACHINE_CHECK.
> > 
> > What about this?
> > 
> > 	Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> > 	Date:   Mon Jul 14 05:16:55 2025 -0700
> > 
> > 	arm64: Taint kernel on fatal hardware error in do_sea()
> > 
> > 	This patch updates the do_sea() handler to taint the kernel with
> > 	TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK when a fatal hardware error is detected and
> > 	reported through Synchronous External Abort (SEA). By marking
> > 	the kernel as tainted at the point of error, we improve
> > 	post-mortem diagnostics and make it clear that a machine check
> > 	or unrecoverable hardware fault has occurred.
> > 
> > 	Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > 	Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> > 
> > 	diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > 	index 11eb8d1adc84..f590dc71ce99 100644
> > 	--- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > 	+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > 	@@ -838,6 +838,7 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > 			*/
> > 			siaddr  = untagged_addr(far);
> > 		}
> > 	+	add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > 		arm64_notify_die(inf->name, regs, inf->sig, inf->code, siaddr, esr);
> > 
> > 		return 0;
> 
> Yeah, I reckon so. Probably just fold these into a single patch, though.

Thanks. I test it better tomorrow, then send it.

Thanks for the suggestions,
--breno