On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 07:18:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 07:35:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > + paulmck. > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:08:10AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > Add synchronize_srcu_expedited() to sgx_encl_release() to catch a grace > > > > > period initiated by sgx_mmu_notifier_release(). > > > > > > > > > > A trivial example of a failing sequence with tasks A and B: > > > > > > > > > > 1. A: -> sgx_release() > > > > > 2. B: -> sgx_mmu_notifier_release() > > > > > 3. B: -> list_del_rcu() > > > > > 3. A: -> sgx_encl_release() > > > > > 4. A: -> cleanup_srcu_struct() > > > > > > > > > > The loop in sgx_release() observes an empty list because B has removed its > > > > > entry in the middle, and calls cleanup_srcu_struct() before B has a chance > > > > > to calls synchronize_srcu(). > > > > > > > > Leading to what? NULL ptr? > > > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/X9e2jOWz1hfXVpQ5@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > already suggested that you should explain the bug better and add the > > > > splat but I'm still missing that explanation. > > > > > > OK, I'll try to explain it how I understand the issue. > > > > > > Consider this loop in the VFS release hook (sgx_release): > > > > > > /* > > > * Drain the remaining mm_list entries. At this point the list contains > > > * entries for processes, which have closed the enclave file but have > > > * not exited yet. The processes, which have exited, are gone from the > > > * list by sgx_mmu_notifier_release(). > > > */ > > > for ( ; ; ) { > > > spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock); > > > > > > if (list_empty(&encl->mm_list)) { > > > encl_mm = NULL; > > > } else { > > > encl_mm = list_first_entry(&encl->mm_list, > > > struct sgx_encl_mm, list); > > > list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list); > > > } > > > > > > spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock); > > > > > > /* The enclave is no longer mapped by any mm. */ > > > if (!encl_mm) > > > break; > > > > > > synchronize_srcu(&encl->srcu); > > > mmu_notifier_unregister(&encl_mm->mmu_notifier, encl_mm->mm); > > > kfree(encl_mm); > > > } > > > > > > > > > At this point all processes have closed the enclave file, but that doesn't > > > mean that they all have exited yet. > > > > > > Now, let's imagine that there is exactly one entry in the encl->mm_list. > > > and sgx_release() execution gets scheduled right after returning from > > > synchronize_srcu(). > > > > > > With some bad luck, some process comes and removes that last entry befoe > > > sgx_release() acquires mm_lock. The loop in sgx_release() just leaves > > > > > > /* The enclave is no longer mapped by any mm. */ > > > if (!encl_mm) > > > break; > > > > > > No synchronize_srcu(). > > > > > > After writing this, I think that the placement for synchronize_srcu() > > > in this patch is not best possible. It should be rather that the > > > above loop would also call synchronize_srcu() when leaving. > > > > > > I.e. the code change would result: > > > > > > for ( ; ; ) { > > > spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock); > > > > > > if (list_empty(&encl->mm_list)) { > > > encl_mm = NULL; > > > } else { > > > encl_mm = list_first_entry(&encl->mm_list, > > > struct sgx_encl_mm, list); > > > list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list); > > > } > > > > > > spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock); > > > > > > /* > > > * synchronize_srcu() is mandatory *even* when the list was > > > * empty, in order make sure that grace periods stays in > > > * sync even when another task took away the last entry > > > * (i.e. exiting process when it deletes its mm_list). > > > */ > > > synchronize_srcu(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > /* The enclave is no longer mapped by any mm. */ > > > if (!encl_mm) > > > break; > > > > > > mmu_notifier_unregister(&encl_mm->mmu_notifier, encl_mm->mm); > > > kfree(encl_mm); > > > } > > > > > > What do you think? Does this start to make more sense now? > > > I don't have logs for this but the bug can be also reasoned. > > > > It does. Now you need to write it up in a detailed form so that it is > > clear to readers months/years from now what exactly can happen. You can > > use a two-column format like > > > > CPU A CPU B > > > > Bla > > Blu > > > > This happens now here > > But this needs to happen there > > > > and so on. > > > > Also, from reading up a bit on this, Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst says > > > > "Use of the expedited primitives should be restricted to rare > > configuration-change operations that would not normally be undertaken > > while a real-time workload is running." > > > > so why are you using synchronize_srcu_expedited()? Grepping the tree > > reveals only a couple of call sites only... but I've almost no clue of > > RCU so lemme CC Paul. > > It spun out of this discussion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/20201215213517.GA34761@xxxxxxxxxx/raw > > My reasoning was that this is not a common case. The main loop > that uses synchronize_srcu(). It seems to me that loading and unloading SGX enclaves qualifies as a configuration operation, so use of synchronize_srcu_expedited() should be just fine in that case. This of course implies that SGX enclaves should not be loaded or unloaded while an aggressive real-time application is running. Which might well be the case for other reasons. So I believe synchronize_srcu_expedited() should be fine in this case. Thanx, Paul
