| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:44:56 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ying.huang@...el.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jason.wessel@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] x86, nmi: create new NMI handler routines
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:04:11AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > The NMI handlers used to rely on the notifier infrastructure. This worked
> > great until we wanted to support handling multiple events better.
> >
> > One of the key ideas to the nmi handling is to process _all_ the handlers for
> > each NMI. The reason behind this switch is because NMIs are edge triggered.
> > If enough NMIs are triggered, then they could be lost because the cpu can
> > only latch at most one NMI (besides the one currently being processed).
> >
> > In order to deal with this we have decided to process all the NMI handlers
> > for each NMI. This allows the handlers to determine if they recieved an
> > event or not (the ones that can not determine this will be left to fend
> > for themselves on the unknown NMI list).
> >
> > As a result of this change it is now possible to have an extra NMI that
> > was destined to be received for an already processed event. Because the
> > event was processed in the previous NMI, this NMI gets dropped and becomes
> > an 'unknown' NMI. This of course will cause printks that scare people.
> >
> > However, we prefer to have extra NMIs as opposed to losing NMIs and as such
> > are have developed a basic mechanism to catch most of them. That will be
> > a later patch.
> >
> > To accomplish this idea, I unhooked the nmi handlers from the notifier
> > routines and created a new mechanism loosely based on doIRQ. The reason
> > for this is the notifier routines have a couple of shortcomings. One we
> > could't guarantee all future NMI handlers used NOTIFY_OK instead of
> > NOTIFY_STOP. Second, we couldn't keep track of the number of events being
> > handled in each routine (most only handle one, perf can handle more than one).
> > Third, I wanted to eventually display which nmi handlers are registered in
> > the system in /proc/interrupts to help see who is generating NMIs.
> >
> > The patch below just implements the new infrastructure but doesn't wire it up
> > yet (that is the next patch). Its design is based on doIRQ structs and the
> > atomic notifier routines. So the rcu stuff in the patch isn't entirely untested
> > (as the notifier routines have soaked it) but it should be double checked in
> > case I copied the code wrong.
>
> One comment below.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h | 19 ++++++
> > arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h
> > index 4886a68..6d04b28 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h
> > @@ -42,6 +42,25 @@ void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void);
> > #define NMI_LOCAL_NORMAL_PRIOR (NMI_LOCAL_BIT | NMI_NORMAL_PRIOR)
> > #define NMI_LOCAL_LOW_PRIOR (NMI_LOCAL_BIT | NMI_LOW_PRIOR)
> >
> > +#define NMI_FLAG_FIRST 1
> > +
> > +enum {
> > + NMI_LOCAL=0,
> > + NMI_UNKNOWN,
> > + NMI_EXTERNAL,
> > + NMI_MAX
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define NMI_DONE 0
> > +#define NMI_HANDLED 1
> > +
> > +typedef int (*nmi_handler_t)(unsigned int, struct pt_regs *);
> > +
> > +int register_nmi_handler(unsigned int, nmi_handler_t, unsigned long,
> > + const char *);
> > +
> > +void unregister_nmi_handler(unsigned int, const char *);
> > +
> > void stop_nmi(void);
> > void restart_nmi(void);
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c b/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
> > index 68d758a..dfc46a8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,9 @@
> > #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> > #include <linux/kdebug.h>
> > #include <linux/nmi.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_EDAC)
> > #include <linux/edac.h>
> > @@ -21,6 +24,27 @@
> > #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > #include <asm/traps.h>
> > #include <asm/mach_traps.h>
> > +#include <asm/nmi.h>
> > +
> > +struct nmiaction {
> > + struct nmiaction __rcu *next;
> > + nmi_handler_t handler;
> > + unsigned int flags;
> > + const char *name;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct nmi_desc {
> > + spinlock_t lock;
> > + struct nmiaction __rcu *head;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct nmi_desc nmi_desc[NMI_MAX] =
> > +{
> > + { .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&nmi_desc[0].lock), },
> > + { .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&nmi_desc[1].lock), },
> > + { .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&nmi_desc[2].lock), },
> > +
> > +};
> >
> > static int ignore_nmis;
> >
> > @@ -38,6 +62,121 @@ static int __init setup_unknown_nmi_panic(char *str)
> > }
> > __setup("unknown_nmi_panic", setup_unknown_nmi_panic);
> >
> > +#define nmi_to_desc(type) (&nmi_desc[type])
> > +
> > +static int notrace __kprobes nmi_handle(unsigned int type, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + struct nmi_desc *desc = nmi_to_desc(type);
> > + struct nmiaction *next_a, *a, **ap = &desc->head;
> > + int handled=0;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + a = rcu_dereference_raw(*ap);
>
> The reason for rcu_dereference_raw() is to prevent lockdep from choking
> due to being called from an NMI handler, correct? If so, please add a
> comment to this effect on this and similar uses.
That sounds right. But honestly, I just copied what notifier_call_chain
had. Regardless, I will make sure to document that in my next version.
Thanks!
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists