linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup

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: <20100819022742.GI4879@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:27:42 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Andy Grover <andy.grover@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog
 and touch_softlockup_watchdog

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from
> non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO.  It's hard to see why
> anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off
> code.  Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be
> called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall().
> 
> That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by
> accident!  An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least.
> 
> 
> The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called
> from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO.  If I have a piece of
> code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
> for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do
> that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without
> needing to go non-preemptible.

Wow.  So after re-reading what the original touch_*_watchdog code did and what I
copied to kernel/watchdog.c, I'm a little embarrassed on how I managed to
mangle the internals of both those functions.

While the idea is the same, the semantics are clearly different.

touch_nmi_watchdog had a for_each_cpu_present loop, which means it didn't
have to deal with the preempt issue.

touch_softlockup_watchdog used __raw_get_cpu_var to excuse itself from
dealing with the preempt issue.

I'll put together a patch that brings those functions back in line with
what they used to be.  Sorry for the trouble.

Cheers,
Don

--
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/