On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:34:48AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:35:29PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:07:23PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Baseline before adding Sean's updates. This contains only my updates. I
> > > spent this day mostly fixing diff's. Especially these two were somewhat
> > > unclean:
> > >
> > > 1. x86/sgx: Add a page reclaimer
> > > 2. x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver
> > >
> > > Now they pile up nicely (I think). So I decided to do this tag since now
> > > commit's in the sense of form and shape are legit. And also because
> > > things, well, work.
> > >
> > > I'll continue from this by integrating Sean's changes. You can see below
> > > what has been already changed.
> > >
> > > /Jarkko
> > >
> > > tag v23-rc1
> > > Tagger: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed Oct 9 16:59:10 2019 +0300
> > >
> > > x86/sgx: v23-rc1 patch set
> > >
> > > * Return -EIO instead of -ECANCELED when ptrace() fails to read a TCS page.
> > > * In the reclaimer, pin page before ENCLS[EBLOCK] because pinning can fail
> > > (because of OOM) even in legit behaviour and after EBLOCK the reclaiming
> > > flow can be only reverted by killing the whole enclave.
> > > * Fixed SGX_ATTR_RESERVED_MASK. Bit 7 was marked as reserved while in fact
> > > it should have been bit 6 (Table 37-3 in the SDM).
> > > * Return -EPERM from SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT when ENCLS[EINIT] returns an SGX
> > > error code.
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > > iJYEABYIAD4WIQRE6pSOnaBC00OEHEIaerohdGur0gUCXZ3nxCAcamFya2tvLnNh
> > > a2tpbmVuQGxpbnV4LmludGVsLmNvbQAKCRAaerohdGur0mKVAQDcmIGs2f8y8hDY
> > > b7zaQdNbaAMgsEkQ3ohMA88fbm2UQwD+P7y5AcAxzdccbgh++7RDy6XR2Ow2pluW
> > > vCGUvRAhgwY=
> > > =LCI3
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > > /Jarkko
> >
> > Getting this with rc1 (after running selftest). Leaving from office.
> > No time to check this today but here are anyway logs.
> >
> > [ 96.906523] ============================================
> > [ 96.906600] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > [ 96.906679] 5.4.0-rc1-custom #66 Not tainted
> > [ 96.906741] --------------------------------------------
> > [ 96.906817] test_sgx/1297 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 96.906889] ffff99032aebdb18 (&mm->mmap_sem#2){++++}, at: __do_page_fault+0x424/0x4f0
> > [ 96.907009]
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 96.907091] ffff99032aebdb18 (&mm->mmap_sem#2){++++}, at: sgx_ioc_enclave_add_page+0x1fc/0x620
> > [ 96.907217]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 96.907308] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > [ 96.907391] CPU0
> > [ 96.907428] ----
> > [ 96.907464] lock(&mm->mmap_sem#2);
> > [ 96.907516] lock(&mm->mmap_sem#2);
> > [ 96.907569]
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > [ 96.907650] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> >
> > [ 96.907745] 2 locks held by test_sgx/1297:
> > [ 96.907804] #0: ffff99032aebdb18 (&mm->mmap_sem#2){++++}, at: sgx_ioc_enclave_add_page+0x1fc/0x620
> > [ 96.907935] #1: ffff990322de0080 (&encl->lock){+.+.}, at: sgx_ioc_enclave_add_page+0x212/0x620
> > [ 96.910109]
> > stack backtrace:
> > [ 96.914616] CPU: 0 PID: 1297 Comm: test_sgx Not tainted 5.4.0-rc1-custom #66
> > [ 96.918182] Hardware name: Intel Corporation NUC7CJYH/NUC7JYB, BIOS JYGLKCPX.86A.0047.2018.1219.1246 12/19/2018
> > [ 96.921795] Call Trace:
> > [ 96.925209] dump_stack+0x8e/0xd5
> > [ 96.928462] __lock_acquire+0xeab/0x1470
> > [ 96.931648] ? __do_fault+0x57/0x11d
> > [ 96.934761] lock_acquire+0xa3/0x180
> > [ 96.937820] ? __do_page_fault+0x424/0x4f0
> > [ 96.940866] down_read+0x30/0x150
> > [ 96.943867] ? __do_page_fault+0x424/0x4f0
> > [ 96.946889] __do_page_fault+0x424/0x4f0
> > [ 96.949792] do_page_fault+0x2c/0x1a0
> > [ 96.952602] page_fault+0x39/0x40
> > [ 96.955400] RIP: 0010:sgx_ioc_enclave_add_page+0x3aa/0x620
> > [ 96.958181] Code: 9d 10 ff ff ff 48 89 c8 48 81 e1 00 f0 ff ff 83 e0 0f 48 8d 14 40 48 8d 04 90 49 8d 04 c0 48 2b 08 48 03 48 08 b8 01 00 00 00 <0f> 01 cf 31 c0 0f 01 ca 85 c0 0f 85 0b 02 00 00 65 48 8b 04 25 c0
> > [ 96.964133] RSP: 0018:ffffb46640df3c80 EFLAGS: 00050286
> > [ 96.967141] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffffb46640df3cc0 RCX: ffffb4664ddfd000
> > [ 96.970254] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007f2d7a30f000 RDI: 0000000000000246
> > [ 96.973440] RBP: ffffb46640df3db0 R08: ffffffffa8faf8a0 R09: 0000000000000000
> > [ 96.976698] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff990322de0000
> > [ 96.980048] R13: ffff99032ba198c0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff99033a10cfe0
> > [ 96.983425] ? avc_has_extended_perms+0x1f6/0x610
> > [ 96.986830] sgx_ioctl+0x87/0x470
> > [ 96.990247] ? sgx_ioctl+0x87/0x470
> > [ 96.993696] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa9/0x6d0
> > [ 96.997151] ? tomoyo_file_ioctl+0x19/0x20
> > [ 97.000571] ksys_ioctl+0x75/0x80
> > [ 97.003983] ? do_syscall_64+0x17/0x230
> > [ 97.007285] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a/0x20
> > [ 97.010487] do_syscall_64+0x5f/0x230
> > [ 97.013612] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > [ 97.016791] RIP: 0033:0x7f2d79e135d7
> > [ 97.019897] Code: b3 66 90 48 8b 05 b1 48 2d 00 64 c7 00 26 00 00 00 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 b8 10 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 81 48 2d 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > [ 97.026332] RSP: 002b:00007ffd983721f8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > [ 97.029673] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f2d79e135d7
> > [ 97.033037] RDX: 00007ffd98372260 RSI: 000000004020a401 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > [ 97.036426] RBP: 00007ffd98372330 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000000
> > [ 97.039813] R10: 00007ffd98372350 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00005565ae6e89e0
> > [ 97.043190] R13: 00007ffd98373c40 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > [ 681.794211] kmemleak: 1 new suspected memory leaks (see /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
> >
> > $ sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> > [sudo] password for jsakkine:
> > unreferenced object 0xffff990325b69eb0 (size 16):
> > comm "kworker/u8:1", pid 31, jiffies 4294895395 (age 1718.288s)
> > hex dump (first 16 bytes):
> > 6d 65 6d 73 74 69 63 6b 30 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 memstick0.......
> > backtrace:
> > [<0000000010512df5>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x139/0x280
> > [<00000000a5374cb0>] kstrdup+0x31/0x60
> > [<00000000c59be911>] kstrdup_const+0x24/0x30
> > [<00000000ff88e957>] kvasprintf_const+0x86/0xa0
> > [<0000000050affb9a>] kobject_set_name_vargs+0x23/0x90
> > [<00000000839b8dd7>] dev_set_name+0x4e/0x70
> > [<0000000069897a8c>] memstick_check+0xdf/0x3a3 [memstick]
> > [<00000000dffb0c9f>] process_one_work+0x281/0x5c0
> > [<00000000090981e2>] worker_thread+0x34/0x400
> > [<00000000bb117b3c>] kthread+0x121/0x140
> > [<000000004d2f4c32>] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x50
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> The locking order is all wrong:
>
> up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
>
> if (ret)
> goto err_out;
>
> ret = __sgx_encl_extend(encl, epc_page, addp->mrmask);
> if (ret)
> goto err_out;
>
> encl_page->encl = encl;
> encl_page->epc_page = epc_page;
> encl->secs_child_cnt++;
>
> sgx_mark_page_reclaimable(encl_page->epc_page);
>
> mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
>
> Sean: what might be reason for this? Probably is caused by add
> page worker changes. Is this just something that has happend when
> squashing patches by accident?
I guess it is a real regression as the same happens in the
error path.
/Jarkko
