From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB22C433E0 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06C723120 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:22:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E06C723120 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 306D96B0071; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 291B56B0073; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:22:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 10B8C6B0074; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:22:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0090.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.90]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC3B6B0071 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:22:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ABB180AD815 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:22:37 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77697792354.29.thing49_220af2b27517 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371A6180882CB for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:21:37 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: thing49_220af2b27517 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5802 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EDBD2312A for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1610472094; bh=ELOARBBiofdYIx02xC2M8PkPXYlHSTVJmEKHZzgBULE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=kM63G85GYcDem7lfwRdnJAqLP1ebW9sR8qmat/Ayek+uF749MSGlAaBYStRjg5TBD b2zNPH5RoM2/8UgPTWlOiLgKPSqlq9ZTGoOIo9c2o5+OBt6VUQR/TqupvBv9QHcEzm CPDDnw6RxTjerTu1EQDG6pkwb4zqEp8vvHbI37wZ+x0YNxDCVVb5bRID+Yl53YiPwg +59dFtO4wISZG6pDx6fqTnTCVo8dkOhqitf1oBt18J/pGzVWC/Kjcl2pv2fAGY99T2 VvsHxXEpTFdAotUwGFio7bHOhxC9LOEVA52Oen5psYp6uJmB0qOgUGdZfU5VxHtri7 pm3S2EOLos/ig== Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id q22so4646543eja.2 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:21:34 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sF1V9RN7I082cyhO1aImO/TGL4lt4P420ya9WCXC0dUv1sTHM U3NIvN7Lmp9S1DzPMuLkLl1SIx/tlI23ulVkThBgQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzG45Q6mZpr5OuQGqeovuqrQr66d54Wzrwvejj9Io/dicJpF2AjAct15P9qtUGkYrC3a/347ZsTPv1uM0FABxU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:351a:: with SMTP id r26mr3767359eja.204.1610472092963; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:21:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210111214452.1826-2-tony.luck@intel.com> <20210111222057.GA2369@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20210112171628.GA15664@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20210112171628.GA15664@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:21:21 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , X86 ML , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , LKML , linux-edac , Linux-MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:16 AM Luck, Tony wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:00:14AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > > > =EF=BB=BFOn Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:11:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wr= ote: > > >> > > >>>> On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Tony Luck wrote= : > > >>> > > >>> =EF=BB=BFRecovery action when get_user() triggers a machine check u= ses the fixup > > >>> path to make get_user() return -EFAULT. Also queue_task_work() set= s up > > >>> so that kill_me_maybe() will be called on return to user mode to se= nd a > > >>> SIGBUS to the current process. > > >>> > > >>> But there are places in the kernel where the code assumes that this > > >>> EFAULT return was simply because of a page fault. The code takes so= me > > >>> action to fix that, and then retries the access. This results in a = second > > >>> machine check. > > >>> > > >>> While processing this second machine check queue_task_work() is cal= led > > >>> again. But since this uses the same callback_head structure that > > >>> was used in the first call, the net result is an entry on the > > >>> current->task_works list that points to itself. > > >> > > >> Is this happening in pagefault_disable context or normal sleepable f= ault context? If the latter, maybe we should reconsider finding a way for = the machine check code to do its work inline instead of deferring it. > > > > > > The first machine check is in pagefault_disable() context. > > > > > > static int get_futex_value_locked(u32 *dest, u32 __user *from) > > > { > > > int ret; > > > > > > pagefault_disable(); > > > ret =3D __get_user(*dest, from); > > > > I have very mixed feelings as to whether we should even try to recover > > from the first failure like this. If we actually want to try to > > recover, perhaps we should instead arrange for the second MCE to > > recover successfully instead of panicking. > > Well we obviously have to "recover" from the first machine check > in order to get to the second. Are you saying you don't like the > different return value from get_user()? > > In my initial playing around with this I just had the second machine > check simply skip the task_work_add(). This worked for this case, but > only because there wasn't a third, fourth, etc. access to the poisoned > data. If the caller keeps peeking, then we'll keep taking more machine > checks - possibly forever. > > Even if we do recover with just one extra machine check ... that's one > more than was necessary. Well, we need to do *something* when the first __get_user() trips the #MC. It would be nice if we could actually fix up the page tables inside the #MC handler, but, if we're in a pagefault_disable() context we might have locks held. Heck, we could have the pagetable lock held, be inside NMI, etc. Skipping the task_work_add() might actually make sense if we get a second one. We won't actually infinite loop in pagefault_disable() context -- if we would, then we would also infinite loop just from a regular page fault, too.