linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: Remove lockdep

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: <1308734409.1022.14.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:20:09 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: Remove lockdep_off() and wakeups -v3

On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 17:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Patch 0b5e1c5255 from -tip needs to be reverted (or better dropped), due
> us discovering why doing up() under logbuf_lock was important -- thanks 
> Andrew, Ingo! 

Or we can do the below delta to fix things up..

---
Subject: printk: Fix-up console_sem vs logbuf_lock unlock race
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date: Fri Jun 10 12:05:38 CEST 2011

Fix up the fallout from commit 0b5e1c5255 (printk: Release console_sem
after logbuf_lock).

The reason for unlocking the console_sem under the logbuf_lock is that
a concurrent printk() might full up the buffer but fail to acquire the
console sem, resulting in a missed write to the console until a
subsequent console_sem acquire/release cycle.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 kernel/printk.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/printk.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/printk.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/printk.c
@@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
 	unsigned _con_start, _log_end;
-	unsigned wake_klogd = 0;
+	unsigned wake_klogd = 0, retry = 0;
 
 	if (console_suspended) {
 		up(&console_sem);
@@ -1253,6 +1253,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
 
 	console_may_schedule = 0;
 
+again:
 	for ( ; ; ) {
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);
 		wake_klogd |= log_start - log_end;
@@ -1273,8 +1274,23 @@ void console_unlock(void)
 	if (unlikely(exclusive_console))
 		exclusive_console = NULL;
 
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
+	spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
+
 	up(&console_sem);
+
+	/*
+	 * Someone could have filled up the buffer again, so re-check if there's
+	 * something to flush. In case we cannot trylock the console_sem again,
+	 * there's a new owner and the console_unlock() from them will do the
+	 * flush, no worries.
+	 */
+	spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
+	if (con_start != log_end)
+		retry = 1;
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
+	if (retry && console_trylock())
+		goto again;
+
 	if (wake_klogd)
 		wake_up_klogd();
 }

--
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/