linux-kernel - Re: [printk] fbc14616f4: BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test

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:   Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:44:55 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [printk]  fbc14616f4:
 BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage

On Fri 2017-04-07 21:10:21, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/07/17 10:14), Pavel Machek wrote:
> [..]
> > Well. This is what we had for 20 years.
> 
> I guess it's not just me who is a bit unhappy with printk. ask
> Peter Zijlstra what's the first word that comes into his mind
> when we reads "printk"  :)

Well, still we should make sure we are improving.

> [..]
> > I believe "spend at most 2 seconds in printk(), then print a warning
> > and offload" is a solution closer to what we had before.
> 
> a warning here can be very noisy.

Well, on normally-configured it should be ok. We don't commonly see
printk problems... If it is too noisy, perhaps we should increase from
2 seconds, but I don't think it will be problem.

> it's quite common that serial console (`console_seq') is a bit behind
> the logbuf head (`log_next_seq'). because log_store() can be much faster
> that call into console drivers.
> 
> another case is that  printk() != console_unlock().  console_sem can be
> locked by VT, TTY, fbdev, (not to mention that some other CPU might be
> doing printing), etc. etc. all printk()-s in the meantime will just
> log_store() messages, so we can have a bunch on pending messsges in
> logbuf, it's normal. the CPU that owns the console_sem will print all
> those pending messages from console_unlock() path. the distance between
> `log_next_seq' and `console_seq' can be much bigger than 2 seconds or
> 240/320/etc chars. so wrong offloading can leave with nothing valuable
> in the serial output, even if we would defer it.
> 
> well, I'm not arguing. just saying that it's not so easy to do everything
> right here.
>

Well, I have to agree here. This is 20 years worth of mess :-(.

> what we have been thinking about is something like printk-stall detection.
> we probably (there are some if-s) can detect in printk() that offloading
> does not work and we must automatically switch to printk_emergency mode.
> that, in theory, can relax our dependency on printk_emergency_begin/end
> being in the right place at the right time. need to think more about it.

So... I don't really like the begin/end interface. I would rather have
printk_emergency(KERN_ ...).

Second... I don't think "stuck detector" is that helpful. What I
usually seen was some rather innocent kernel message followed by
hard-lock. That's where "message delayed" is useful..
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)