linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:49:57 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu_backtrace()
 methods

On 8/8/2016 9:57 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-07-14 16:50:29, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> Currently you can only request a backtrace of either all cpus, or
>> all cpus but yourself.  It can also be helpful to request a remote
>> backtrace of a single cpu, and since we want that, the logical
>> extension is to support a cpumask as the underlying primitive.
>>
>> This change modifies the existing lib/nmi_backtrace.c code to take
>> a cpumask as its basic primitive, and modifies the linux/nmi.h code
>> to use either the old "all/all_but_self" arch methods, or the new
>> "cpumask" method, depending on which is available.
> I triggered this function using
>    echo l >/proc/sysrq-trigger
>
>
> and got
>
> [  270.791328] -----------  All but itself: ---------------------
>
> [  270.791331] ===============================
> [  270.791331] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [  270.791333] 4.8.0-rc1-4-default+ #3086 Not tainted
> [  270.791333] -------------------------------
> [  270.791335] ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:556 Illegal context switch in RCU read-side critical section!

Ah hah, you tested this with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK, which I didn't.
That explains why you got RCU kmalloc warnings.

>> +	cpumask_copy(mask, cpu_online_mask);
>> +	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mask);
>> +	arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(mask);
>> +	put_cpu();
>> +	free_cpumask_var(mask);
>> +	return true;
> Also this looks too much code for an inlined function.
> It is rather slow and there is not a big gain. I would move
> the definition to lib/nmi_backtrace.c.

After some thought, I ended up just removing both cpumask allocation
sites.  For the allbutself() case, I just re-introduced the "include_self"
boolean that the code used to have.  If it is false when we get into the inner
nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(), I just clear the cpu bit of the current
cpu.  It requires passing a funny boolean around with the mask, but the
alternative (if we don't want to allocate a mask on this path) is to
break apart the nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() function so we can
piggy-back on its locking and its cpumask and set up the cpumask the
way we want, which I think is too much added ugliness.

For the trigger_single_cpu_backtrace() case, I remembered that there was
a cpumask_of() function that we can use that is fast and doesn't allocate,
even with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK, so I just used that instead.

> PS: I am sorry for sending this so late in the game. I was
> curious why the patch had not been upstream yet and. I made
> a closer look to give a Reviewed-by tag...

No worries - even a late review is much better than none!  I'll
send v7 shortly and please do let me know if it works for you.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com