From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Zaborowski <andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
Cc: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] x86: Add task_struct flag to force SIGBUS on MCE
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:36:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202408052135.342F9455@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240723144752.1478226-1-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:47:50PM +0200, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
> Uncorrected memory errors for user pages are signaled to processes
> using SIGBUS or, if the error happens in a syscall, an error retval
> from the syscall. The SIGBUS is documented in
> Documentation/mm/hwpoison.rst#failure-recovery-modes
>
> But there are corner cases where we cannot or don't want to return a
> plain error from the syscall. Subsequent commits covers two such cases:
> execve and rseq. Current code, in both places, will kill the task with a
> SIGSEGV on error. While not explicitly stated, it can be argued that it
> should be a SIGBUS, for consistency and for the benefit of the userspace
> signal handlers. Even if the process cannot handle the signal, perhaps
> the parent process can. This was the case in the scenario that
> motivated this patch.
>
> In both cases, the architecture's exception handler (MCE handler on x86)
> will queue a call to memory_failure. This doesn't work because the
> syscall-specific code sees the -EFAULT and terminates the task before
> the queued work runs.
>
> To fix this: 1. let pending work run in the error cases in both places.
>
> And 2. on MCE, ensure memory_failure() is passed MF_ACTION_REQUIRED so
> that the SIGBUS is queued. Normally when the MCE is in a syscall,
> a fixup of return IP and a call to kill_me_never() are what we want.
> But in this case it's necessary to queue kill_me_maybe() which will set
> MF_ACTION_REQUIRED which is checked by memory_failure().
>
> To do this the syscall code will set current->kill_on_efault, a new
> task_struct flag. Check that flag in
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c:do_machine_check()
>
> Note: the flag is not x86 specific even if only x86 handling is being
> added here. The definition could be guarded by #ifdef
> CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE, but it would then need set/clear utilities.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Zaborowski <andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
> ---
> Resending through an SMTP server that won't add the company footer.
>
> This is a v2 of
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240501015340.3014724-1-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com/
> In the v1 the existing flag current->in_execve was being reused instead
> of adding a new one. Kees Cook commented in
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202405010915.465AF19@keescook/ that
> current->in_execve is going away. Lacking a better idea and seeing
> that execve() and rseq() would benefit from using a common mechanism, I
> decided to add this new flag.
>
> Perhaps with a better name current->kill_on_efault could replace
> brpm->point_of_no_return to offset the pain of having this extra flag.
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
Since this touches arch/x86/, can an x86 maintainer review this? I can
carry this via the execve tree...
-Kees
> include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index ad0623b65..13f2ace3d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -1611,7 +1611,7 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
> if (p)
> SetPageHWPoison(p);
> }
> - } else {
> + } else if (!current->kill_on_efault) {
> /*
> * Handle an MCE which has happened in kernel space but from
> * which the kernel can recover: ex_has_fault_handler() has
> @@ -1628,6 +1628,22 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)
> queue_task_work(&m, msg, kill_me_never);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Even with recovery code extra handling is required when
> + * we're not returning to userspace after error (e.g. in
> + * execve() beyond the point of no return) to ensure that
> + * a SIGBUS is delivered.
> + */
> + if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_RECOV) {
> + if (!fixup_exception(regs, X86_TRAP_MC, 0, 0))
> + mce_panic("Failed kernel mode recovery", &m, msg);
> + }
> +
> + if (!mce_usable_address(&m))
> + queue_task_work(&m, msg, kill_me_now);
> + else
> + queue_task_work(&m, msg, kill_me_maybe);
> }
>
> out:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 61591ac6e..0cde1ba11 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -975,6 +975,8 @@ struct task_struct {
> /* delay due to memory thrashing */
> unsigned in_thrashing:1;
> #endif
> + /* Kill task on user memory access error */
> + unsigned kill_on_efault:1;
>
> unsigned long atomic_flags; /* Flags requiring atomic access. */
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-06 4:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-23 14:47 Andrew Zaborowski
2024-07-23 14:47 ` [RESEND][PATCH 2/3] execve: Ensure SIGBUS delivered on memory failure Andrew Zaborowski
2024-07-23 14:47 ` [RESEND][PATCH 3/3] rseq: " Andrew Zaborowski
2024-08-06 4:37 ` Kees Cook
2024-08-06 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-06 14:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-08-06 4:36 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2024-08-06 8:35 ` [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] x86: Add task_struct flag to force SIGBUS on MCE Borislav Petkov
[not found] ` <SA1PR11MB69926BFE8EFDA7B3C3D84560E7B82@SA1PR11MB6992.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
[not found] ` <CAOq732KXwsKdht55E-Z18choiAYn6dMpXc-TD15B7MOUH1fpxQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20240808145331.GAZrTb60FX_I3p0Ukx@fat_crate.local>
2024-08-09 1:22 ` Andrew Zaborowski
2024-08-09 8:34 ` Borislav Petkov
[not found] ` <SA1PR11MB69927AE28B46583DCB5C97DEE7BA2@SA1PR11MB6992.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2024-08-10 1:20 ` Andrew Zaborowski
2024-08-10 3:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-08-10 3:55 ` Andrew Zaborowski
2024-08-10 9:25 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202408052135.342F9455@keescook \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew.zaborowski@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox