linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq

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]

Message-ID: <20070810093353.GA19777@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:33:53 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, vignaud@...dmail.fr,
	marcin.slusarz@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70
	check_irq_resend()


* Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:

> > > > +               }
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND
> > 
> > we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right?
> 
> Right: unconditionally on a condition they are not edges...
> 
> But, since not resending at all seems to work so good in testing, I 
> thought, _SW_RESEND could be considered as an unnecessarily 
> complicated alternative.
> 
> Now, I'm a bit confused...

the idea is multi-pronged:

 - Primarily, we want to fix the regression. 2.6.20 worked, 2.6.21 
   didnt, that has to be fixed, no matter what - end of story. But we've 
   got a wide selection of patches for that purpose now, so what matters 
   at this point is the secondary question:

 - we want to know _why exactly_ the hang happens. We now have a pretty 
   good theory: hw-resend hangs the IO-APIC. (there is a delicate dance
   between local APICs and IO-APICs for level-triggered irqs, and if we
   interject via hw-resending via the local APIC, existing races, hw
   bugs or weaknesses in our hw-resend implementation might be exposed)

and even though we now have a wide selection of patches we really want 
to get to the bottom of the problem so that we can fix the bug that got 
exposed: apparently hw resend doesnt always work with level-triggered 
irqs.

Note that the hw-resend sequence can trigger _even without our original 
patch that triggered the regression_, it's just much less likely to 
happen, so this is a pre-existing IO-APIC/APIC code bug that could 
trigger anytime, and which we want to see fixed.

To confirm this theory - does the debug-patch below fix the hang? If it 
fixes the hang then the theory is confirmed and then the right solution 
is to retrigger an IRQ for level-triggered irqs with the proper 
trigger-type set.

	Ingo

------------------>
Not-Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>

Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
@@ -735,7 +735,8 @@ void fastcall send_IPI_self(int vector)
 	 * Wait for idle.
 	 */
 	apic_wait_icr_idle();
-	cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL;
+	cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL |
+		APIC_INT_LEVELTRIG;
 	/*
 	 * Send the IPI. The write to APIC_ICR fires this off.
 	 */
-
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/