linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing too long

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:	Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:49 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
	KY Sri nivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing
 too long

Hi,

slowly looking through the patches.

On (12/22/15 14:47), Jan Kara wrote:
[..]
> @@ -1803,10 +1869,24 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  	logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>  	lockdep_on();
> +	/*
> +	 * By default we print message to console asynchronously so that kernel
> +	 * doesn't get stalled due to slow serial console. That can lead to
> +	 * softlockups, lost interrupts, or userspace timing out under heavy
> +	 * printing load.
> +	 *
> +	 * However we resort to synchronous printing of messages during early
> +	 * boot, when oops is in progress, or when synchronous printing was
> +	 * explicitely requested by kernel parameter.
> +	 */
> +	if (keventd_up() && !oops_in_progress && !sync_print) {
> +		__this_cpu_or(printk_pending, PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> +		irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> +	} else
> +		sync_print = true;
>  	local_irq_restore(flags);

can we replace this oops_in_progress check with something more reliable?

CPU0                                CPU1 - CPUN
panic()
 local_irq_disable()                executing foo() with irqs disabled,
 console_verbose()                  or processing an extremely long irq handler.
 bust_spinlocks()
    oops_in_progress++

 smp_send_stop()

 bust_spinlocks()
    oops_in_progress--              ok, IPI arrives
                                    dump_stack()/printk()/etc from IPI_CPU_STOP
			            "while (1) cpu_relax()" with irq/fiq disabled/halt/etc.

smp_send_stop() wrapped in `oops_in_progress++/oops_in_progress--' is arch specific,
and some platforms don't do any IPI-delivered (e.g. via num_online_cpus()) checks at
all. Some do. For example, arm/arm64:

void smp_send_stop(void)
...
        /* Wait up to one second for other CPUs to stop */
        timeout = USEC_PER_SEC;
        while (num_online_cpus() > 1 && timeout--)
                udelay(1);

        if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
                pr_warn("SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs\n");
...


so there are non-zero chances that IPI will arrive to CPU after 'oops_in_progress--',
and thus dump_stack()/etc. happening on that/those cpu/cpus will be lost.


bust_spinlocks(0) does
...
	if (--oops_in_progress == 0)
		wake_up_klogd();
...

but local cpu has irqs disabled and `panic_timeout' can be zero.

How about setting 'sync_print' to 'true' in...
  bust_spinlocks() /* only set to true */
or
  console_verbose() /* um... may be... */
or
  having a separate one-liner for that

void console_panic_mode(void)
{
	sync_print = true;
}

and call it early in panic(), before we send out IPI_STOP.

	-ss
--
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/