On 2019/9/3 1:36, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux admin <li...@armlinux.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 04:02:48PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Russell King - ARM Linux admin <li...@armlinux.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>> Russell King - ARM Linux admin <li...@armlinux.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:31:17PM +0800, Jing Xiangfeng wrote:
>>>>>>> The function do_alignment can handle misaligned address for user and
>>>>>>> kernel space. If it is a userspace access, do_alignment may fail on
>>>>>>> a low-memory situation, because page faults are disabled in
>>>>>>> probe_kernel_address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fix this by using __copy_from_user stead of probe_kernel_address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixes: b255188 ("ARM: fix scheduling while atomic warning in alignment
>>>>>>> handling code")
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangf...@huawei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "scheduling while atomic warning in alignment handling code" is
>>>>>> caused by fixing up the page fault while trying to handle the
>>>>>> mis-alignment fault generated from an instruction in atomic context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your patch re-introduces that bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the patch that fixed scheduling while atomic apparently introduced a
>>>>> regression. Admittedly a regression that took 6 years to track down but
>>>>> still.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and given the number of years, we are trading one regression for
>>>> a different regression. If we revert to the original code where we
>>>> fix up, we will end up with people complaining about a "new" regression
>>>> caused by reverting the previous fix. Follow this policy and we just
>>>> end up constantly reverting the previous revert.
>>>>
>>>> The window is very small - the page in question will have had to have
>>>> instructions read from it immediately prior to the handler being entered,
>>>> and would have had to be made "old" before subsequently being unmapped.
>>>
>>>> Rather than excessively complicating the code and making it even more
>>>> inefficient (as in your patch), we could instead retry executing the
>>>> instruction when we discover that the page is unavailable, which should
>>>> cause the page to be paged back in.
>>>
>>> My patch does not introduce any inefficiencies. It onlys moves the
>>> check for user_mode up a bit. My patch did duplicate the code.
>>>
>>>> If the page really is unavailable, the prefetch abort should cause a
>>>> SEGV to be raised, otherwise the re-execution should replace the page.
>>>>
>>>> The danger to that approach is we page it back in, and it gets paged
>>>> back out before we're able to read the instruction indefinitely.
>>>
>>> I would think either a little code duplication or a function that looks
>>> at user_mode(regs) and picks the appropriate kind of copy to do would be
>>> the best way to go. Because what needs to happen in the two cases for
>>> reading the instruction are almost completely different.
>>
>> That is what I mean. I'd prefer to avoid that with the large chunk of
>> code. How about instead adding a local replacement for
>> probe_kernel_address() that just sorts out the reading, rather than
>> duplicating all the code to deal with thumb fixup.
>
> So something like this should be fine?
>
> Jing Xiangfeng can you test this please? I think this fixes your issue
> but I don't currently have an arm development box where I could test this.
>
Yes, I have tested and it can fix my issue in kernel 4.19.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
> index 04b36436cbc0..b07d17ca0ae5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/alignment.c
> @@ -767,6 +767,23 @@ do_alignment_t32_to_handler(unsigned long *pinstr,
> struct pt_regs *regs,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static inline unsigned long
> +copy_instr(bool umode, void *dst, unsigned long instrptr, size_t size)
> +{
> + unsigned long result;
> + if (umode) {
> + void __user *src = (void *)instrptr;
> + result = copy_from_user(dst, src, size);
> + } else {
> + void *src = (void *)instrptr;
> + result = probe_kernel_read(dst, src, size);
> + }
> + /* Convert short reads into -EFAULT */
> + if ((result >= 0) && (result < size))
> + result = -EFAULT;
> + return result;
> +}
> +
> static int
> do_alignment(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> @@ -778,22 +795,24 @@ do_alignment(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
> struct pt_regs *regs)
> u16 tinstr = 0;
> int isize = 4;
> int thumb2_32b = 0;
> + bool umode;
>
> if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
> local_irq_enable();
>
> instrptr = instruction_pointer(regs);
> + umode = user_mode(regs);
>
> if (thumb_mode(regs)) {
> - u16 *ptr = (u16 *)(instrptr & ~1);
> - fault = probe_kernel_address(ptr, tinstr);
> + unsigned long tinstrptr = instrptr & ~1;
> + fault = copy_instr(umode, &tinstr, tinstrptr, 2);
> tinstr = __mem_to_opcode_thumb16(tinstr);
> if (!fault) {
> if (cpu_architecture() >= CPU_ARCH_ARMv7 &&
> IS_T32(tinstr)) {
> /* Thumb-2 32-bit */
> u16 tinst2 = 0;
> - fault = probe_kernel_address(ptr + 1, tinst2);
> + fault = copy_instr(umode, &tinst2, tinstrptr +
> 2, 2);
> tinst2 = __mem_to_opcode_thumb16(tinst2);
> instr = __opcode_thumb32_compose(tinstr,
> tinst2);
> thumb2_32b = 1;
> @@ -803,7 +822,7 @@ do_alignment(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct
> pt_regs *regs)
> }
> }
> } else {
> - fault = probe_kernel_address((void *)instrptr, instr);
> + fault = copy_instr(umode, &instr, instrptr, 4);
> instr = __mem_to_opcode_arm(instr);
> }
>
> @@ -812,7 +831,7 @@ do_alignment(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct
> pt_regs *regs)
> goto bad_or_fault;
> }
>
> - if (user_mode(regs))
> + if (umode)
> goto user;
>
> ai_sys += 1;
>
> .
>
