On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 05:35:08PM -0500, Can Sun wrote:
> [ Upstream commit 59f5ede3bc0f00eb856425f636dab0c10feb06d8 ]
>
> The FPU usage related to task FPU management is either protected by
> disabling interrupts (switch_to, return to user) or via fpregs_lock() which
> is a wrapper around local_bh_disable(). When kernel code wants to use the
> FPU then it has to check whether it is possible by calling irq_fpu_usable().
>
> But the condition in irq_fpu_usable() is wrong. It allows FPU to be used
> when:
>
> !in_interrupt() || interrupted_user_mode() || interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle()
>
> The latter is checking whether some other context already uses FPU in the
> kernel, but if that's not the case then it allows FPU to be used
> unconditionally even if the calling context interrupted a fpregs_lock()
> critical region. If that happens then the FPU state of the interrupted
> context becomes corrupted.
>
> Allow in kernel FPU usage only when no other context has in kernel FPU
> usage and either the calling context is not hard interrupt context or the
> hard interrupt did not interrupt a local bottomhalf disabled region.
>
> It's hard to find a proper Fixes tag as the condition was broken in one way
> or the other for a very long time and the eager/lazy FPU changes caused a
> lot of churn. Picked something remotely connected from the history.
>
> This survived undetected for quite some time as FPU usage in interrupt
> context is rare, but the recent changes to the random code unearthed it at
> least on a kernel which had FPU debugging enabled. There is probably a
> higher rate of silent corruption as not all issues can be detected by the
> FPU debugging code. This will be addressed in a subsequent change.
>
> Fixes: 5d2bd7009f30 ("x86, fpu: decouple non-lazy/eager fpu restore from xsave")
> Reported-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Can Sun <cansun@xxxxxxxxxx>
When you send on a patch that you backported, you need to also sign-off
on the change.
Please fix that up and resend.
thanks,
greg k-h
