linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: Fix backtrace generation when IPI is masked

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:10:57 +0100
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Fix backtrace generation when IPI is masked

On 15/09/15 07:58, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> Currently on ARM when <SysRq-L> is triggered from an interrupt handler
>> (e.g. a SysRq issued using UART or kbd) the main CPU will wedge for ten
>> seconds with interrupts masked before issuing a backtrace for every CPU
>> except itself.
>>
>> The new backtrace code introduced by commit 96f0e00378d4 ("ARM: add
>> basic support for on-demand backtrace of other CPUs") does not work
>> correctly when run from an interrupt handler because IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE
>> is used to generate the backtrace on all CPUs but cannot preempt the
>> current calling context.
>>
>> This can be fixed by detecting that the calling context cannot be
>> preempted and issuing the backtrace directly in this case. Some small
>> changes to the generic code are required to support this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 7 +++++++
>>   lib/nmi_backtrace.c   | 5 ++++-
>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
>> index 48185a773852..4d8a80328c74 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -748,6 +748,13 @@ core_initcall(register_cpufreq_notifier);
>>
>>   static void raise_nmi(cpumask_t *mask)
>>   {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Generate the backtrace directly if we are running in a
>> +	 * calling context that is not preemptible by the backtrace IPI.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mask) && irqs_disabled())
>> +		nmi_cpu_backtrace(NULL);
>> +
>>   	smp_cross_call(mask, IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE);
>>   }
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/nmi_backtrace.c b/lib/nmi_backtrace.c
>> index 88d3d32e5923..be0466a80d0b 100644
>> --- a/lib/nmi_backtrace.c
>> +++ b/lib/nmi_backtrace.c
>> @@ -149,7 +149,10 @@ bool nmi_cpu_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>   		/* Replace printk to write into the NMI seq */
>>   		this_cpu_write(printk_func, nmi_vprintk);
>>   		pr_warn("NMI backtrace for cpu %d\n", cpu);
>> -		show_regs(regs);
>> +		if (regs)
>> +			show_regs(regs);
>> +		else
>> +			dump_stack();
>
> Better if dump_stack() is added in a separate patch, given that
> it is not mentioned in commit message.

Adding dump_stack() is mentioned in passing ("Some small changes to the 
generic code are required to support this.") but you're right that the 
reason for the change is not explicitly called out.

I can certainly respin as two patches but perhaps its better just to 
improve the commit message. Something like:

 > This can be fixed by detecting that the calling context cannot be
 > preempted and issuing the backtrace directly in this case. Issuing
 > directly leaves us without any pt_regs to pass to nmi_cpu_backtrace().
 > Modify the generic code to call dump_stack() when its argument is
 > NULL.

Which do you prefer?


Daniel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/