From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
shuzzle@mailbox.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bug 150021] New: kernel panic: "kernel tried to execute NX-protected page" when resuming from hibernate to disk
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:12:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2037077.DPom3MoXJk@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160727175918.5uvo4p54iuhuw7ss@treble>
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:59:18 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 01:08:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 04:53:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:15:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 09:39:05 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:32:28PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> > > > Hi,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > The following commit:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > commit 13523309495cdbd57a0d344c0d5d574987af007f
> > >> > > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > >> > > > Date: Thu Jan 21 16:49:21 2016 -0600
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > x86/asm/acpi: Create a stack frame in do_suspend_lowlevel()
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > do_suspend_lowlevel() is a callable non-leaf function which doesn't
> > >> > > > honor CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, which can result in bad stack traces.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Create a stack frame for it when CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > is reported to cause a resume-from-hibernation regression due to an attempt
> > >> > > > to execute an NX page (we've seen quite a bit of that recently).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm asking the reporter to try 4.7, but if the problem is still there, we'll
> > >> > > > need to revert the above I'm afraid.
> > >> >
> > >> > So the bug is still there in 4.7 and it goes away after reverting the above
> > >> > commit. I guess I'll send a revert then.
> > >>
> > >> Hm, the code in wakeup_64.S seems quite magical, but I can't figure out
> > >> why this change causes a panic. Is it really causing the panic or is it
> > >> uncovering some other bug?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter really.
> > >
> > > It surely interacts with something in a really odd way, but that only means
> > > that its impact goes far beyond what was expected when it was applied. Its
> > > changelog is inadequate as a result and so on.
> > >
> > >> Maybe we should hold off on reverting until we understand the issue.
> > >
> > > Which very well may take forever.
> > >
> > > And AFAICS this is a fix for a theoretical issue and it *reliably* triggers a
> > > very practical kernel panic for this particular reporter. I'd rather live
> > > with the theoretical issue unfixed to be honest.
> >
> > Well, actually, the best part is that do_suspend_lowlevel() is not
> > even called during hibernation or resume from it. It only is called
> > during suspend-to-RAM.
> >
> > Question now is how the change made by the commit in question can
> > affect hibernation which is an unrelated code path. We know for a
> > fact that it does affect it, but how?
>
> Hm... I have a theory, but I'm not sure about it. I noticed that
> x86_acpi_enter_sleep_state(),
I think you mean x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel().
> which is involved in suspend, overwrites
> several global variables (e.g, initial_code) which are used by the CPU
> boot code in head_64.S. But surprisingly, it doesn't restore those
> variables to their original values after it resumes.
Is the head_64.S code also used to bring up offline CPUs?
If not, then this is not the problem, because hibernation doesn't use it
for the boot CPU anyway.
> So if a suspend and resume were done before the hibernate, those
> variables would presumably have suspend-centric values, and the first
> time a CPU is brought up during the hibernation restore operation, it
> would jump to wakeup_long64() (the suspend resume function) instead of
> start_secondary (which is the normal CPU boot function).
>
> So, if true, that would explain why my patch triggers a bug:
> wakeup_long64() always[*] jumps to .Lresume_point, which my patch
> affected. Because of the FRAME_END, it would pop an extra value off the
> stack. So when restore_processor_state() returns, it would return to
> whatever random address is on the stack after the real RIP. Which is
> consistent with the oops from the bug. It had a bad instruction
> pointer, which looked like a stack address.
OK, so why doesn't it break resume from suspend to RAM? wakeup_long64 is
invoked by the CPU startup code then and doesn't the FRAME_END affect
that too?
> But then again, maybe there's a hole in that theory, because how could
> hibernate after suspend/resume possibly even work today if the CPU boot
> goes to wakeup_long64() instead of start_secondary?
Right.
> So I could be missing something, or even completely off base. But the
> missing restore of those variables does seem like a pretty huge
> oversight. I wonder if the following patch would fix it?
We'll need to ask the reporter. :-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> index adb3eaf..cd76fc5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,12 @@ acpi_status asmlinkage __visible x86_acpi_enter_sleep_state(u8 state)
> */
> int x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel(void)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + unsigned long prev_initial_code;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + unsigned long prev_stack_start, prev_gdt_address, prev_initial_gs;
> +#endif
> +#endif
> struct wakeup_header *header =
> (struct wakeup_header *) __va(real_mode_header->wakeup_header);
>
> @@ -99,13 +105,18 @@ int x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel(void)
> saved_magic = 0x12345678;
> #else /* CONFIG_64BIT */
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + prev_stack_start = stack_start;
> + prev_gdt_address = early_gdt_descr.address;
> + prev_initial_gs = initial_gs;
> +
> stack_start = (unsigned long)temp_stack + sizeof(temp_stack);
> early_gdt_descr.address =
> (unsigned long)get_cpu_gdt_table(smp_processor_id());
> initial_gs = per_cpu_offset(smp_processor_id());
> #endif
> + prev_initial_code = initial_code;
> initial_code = (unsigned long)wakeup_long64;
> - saved_magic = 0x123456789abcdef0L;
> + saved_magic = 0x123456789abcdef0L;
> #endif /* CONFIG_64BIT */
>
> /*
> @@ -115,6 +126,16 @@ int x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel(void)
> pause_graph_tracing();
> do_suspend_lowlevel();
> unpause_graph_tracing();
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + initial_code = prev_initial_code;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + initial_gs = prev_initial_gs;
> + early_gdt_descr.address = prev_gdt_address;
> + stack_start = prev_stack_start;
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-27 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-26 11:32 Fwd: [Bug 150021] New: kernel panic: "kernel tried to execute NX-protected page" when resuming from hibernate to disk Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 14:04 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-07-26 20:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 20:33 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 20:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 20:59 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 21:17 ` Thomas Garnier
2016-07-27 5:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-07-26 14:39 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-26 20:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 20:31 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 20:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 21:53 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-26 22:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-26 23:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-27 17:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-27 22:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-07-27 22:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-27 23:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-27 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-28 15:17 ` [PATCH] x86/asm/power: Fix hibernation return address corruption Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-28 15:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-07-28 21:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-29 7:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-07-27 22:20 ` Fwd: [Bug 150021] New: kernel panic: "kernel tried to execute NX-protected page" when resuming from hibernate to disk Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2037077.DPom3MoXJk@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=shuzzle@mailbox.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox