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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:57:32 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing
 too long

On (12/23/15 12:37), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:37:24 +0900
> From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] printk: Hand over printing to console if printing
>  too long
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
> 
> On (12/23/15 10:54), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > 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;
> 
> oops, didn't have enough coffee... missed that `else sync_print = true' :(
> 

ah, never mind my previous email... it's a local variable, so the very next printk()
happening right after bust_spinlocks(0) will irq_work_queue(). I'd prefer CPUs to
print stacks rather than burn cpu cycles in `while (1) cpu_relax()' loop.

so

else {
	printk_sync = true;
	sync_print = true; /* and remove this local variable entirely may be*/
}

> > 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++

					or we huge enough number of CPUs, `deep' stack
					traces, slow serial and CPU doing dump_stack()
					under raw_spin_lock(&stop_lock), so it can take
					longer than 1 second to print the stacks and
					thus panic CPU will set oops_in_progress back
					to 0.

> >  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;

	printk_sync = 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/