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: <20100826144018.GL4879@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:40:18 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:14:31PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 22:57 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Ok, so here is my patch that syncs the touch_*_watchdog back in line with
> > the old semantics.  Hopefully this will undo any harm I caused.
> 
> Was this patch forgotten?

Hm, apparently it was separated out by the mail server.  Here it is again
with some of the headers removed I guess.

Cheers,
Don


From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:48:26 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [lockup detector] sync touch_*_watchdog back to old semantics

During my rewrite, the semantics of touch_nmi_watchdog and
touch_softlockup_watchdog changed enough to break some drivers
(mostly over preemptable regions).

This change brings those touch_*_watchdog functions back in line
to how they used to work.

Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
---
 kernel/watchdog.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 613bc1f..99e35a2 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static void __touch_watchdog(void)
 
 void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 {
-	__get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
 
@@ -142,7 +142,14 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
 void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
 {
-	__get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
+	if (watchdog_enabled) {
+		unsigned cpu;
+
+		for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
+			if (per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) != true)
+				per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) = true;
+		}
+	}
 	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
@@ -430,6 +437,9 @@ static int watchdog_enable(int cpu)
 		wake_up_process(p);
 	}
 
+	/* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
+	watchdog_enabled = 1;
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -452,9 +462,6 @@ static void watchdog_disable(int cpu)
 		per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, cpu) = NULL;
 		kthread_stop(p);
 	}
-
-	/* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
-	watchdog_enabled = 1;
 }
 
 static void watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void)
-- 
1.7.2.1
--
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/