Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:26:08PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
>> context, but this is incorrect.  IST entries from userspace are like
>> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
>> atomic.  IST entries from kernel space are like NMIs from RCU's
>> perspective -- they are not quiescent states even if they
>> interrupted the kernel during a quiescent state.
>>
>> Add and use ist_enter and ist_exit to track IST context.  Even
>> though x86_32 has no IST stacks, we track these interrupts the same
>> way.
>>
>> This fixes two issues:
>>
>>  - Scheduling from an IST interrupt handler will now warn.  It would
>>    previously appear to work as long as we got lucky and nothing
>>    overwrote the stack frame.  (I don't know of any bugs in this
>>    that would trigger the warning, but it's good to be on the safe
>>    side.)
>>
>>  - RCU handling in IST context was dangerous.  As far as I know,
>>    only machine checks were likely to trigger this, but it's good to
>>    be on the safe side.
>>
>> Note that the machine check handlers appears to have been missing
>> any context tracking at all before this patch.
>>
>> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: FrÃdÃric Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h         |  4 +++
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c     |  5 ++++
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p5.c      |  6 +++++
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/winchip.c |  5 ++++
>>  arch/x86/kernel/traps.c              | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  5 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
>> index 0d0e922fafc1..f5c4b8813774 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -107,6 +107,39 @@ static inline void preempt_conditional_cli(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>       preempt_count_dec();
>>  }
>>
>> +enum ctx_state ist_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * We are atomic because we're on the IST stack (or we're on x86_32,
>> +      * in which case we still shouldn't schedule.
>> +      */
>> +     preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
>> +
>> +     if (user_mode_vm(regs)) {
>> +             /* Other than that, we're just an exception. */
>> +             return exception_enter();
>> +     } else {
>> +             /*
>> +              * We might have interrupted pretty much anything.  In
>> +              * fact, if we're a machine check, we can even interrupt
>> +              * NMI processing.  We don't want in_nmi() to return true,
>> +              * but we need to notify RCU.
>> +              */
>> +             rcu_nmi_enter();
>> +             return IN_KERNEL;  /* the value is irrelevant. */
>> +     }
>
> I guess dropping the explicit else-branch could make it look a bit nicer
> with the curly braces gone and all...
>
> enum ctx_state ist_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
>         /*
>          * We are atomic because we're on the IST stack (or we're on x86_32,
>          * in which case we still shouldn't schedule.
>          */
>         preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
>
>         if (user_mode_vm(regs))
>                 /* Other than that, we're just an exception. */
>                 return exception_enter();
>

Two indented lines w/o curly braces makes me think of goto fail; :-/

TBH, when there are clearly two options, I tend to prefer the braces
that make it very obvious what's going on.  I had some memorable bugs
several years ago that would have been impossible if I has used braces
more liberally.

--Andy

>         /*
>          * We might have interrupted pretty much anything.  In fact, if we're a
>          * machine check, we can even interrupt NMI processing.  We don't want
>          * in_nmi() to return true, but we need to notify RCU.
>          */
>         rcu_nmi_enter();
>         return IN_KERNEL;  /* the value is irrelevant. */
> }
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +void ist_exit(struct pt_regs *regs, enum ctx_state prev_state)
>> +{
>> +     preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
>> +
>> +     if (user_mode_vm(regs))
>> +             return exception_exit(prev_state);
>> +     else
>> +             rcu_nmi_exit();
>> +}
>
> Ditto here.
>
>> +
>>  static nokprobe_inline int
>>  do_trap_no_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, int trapnr, char *str,
>>                 struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/