linux-kernel - Re: kdump: crash_kexec()-smp_send

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: <20111025145440.GF23292@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:54:40 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kdump: crash_kexec()-smp_send_stop() race in panic

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 05:04:57AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 10:07 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> So my second thought is to introduce another atomic variable
> >> panic_in_progress, visible only in panic.  The cpu that sets
> >> increments panic_in_progress can call smp_send_stop.  The rest of
> >> the cpus can just go into a busy wait.  That should stop nasty
> >> fights about who is going to come out of smp_send_stop first.
> >
> > So this is a spinlock, no? What about the following patch:
> Do we want both panic printks?
> 

I guess having printk() from from both the panics would be nice.

> We really only need the mutual exclusion starting just before
> smp_send_stop so that is where I would be inclined to put it.
> 

How about something just before crash_kexec()? I think there is not
much point two cpus trying to execute crash_kexec() together.

Thanks
Vivek


> But yeah something like the below should work.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/panic.c |    7 ++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(panic_blink);
> >   */
> >  NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
> >  {
> > +	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(panic_lock);
> >  	static char buf[1024];
> >  	va_list args;
> >  	long i, i_next = 0;
> > @@ -68,8 +69,12 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
> >  	 * It's possible to come here directly from a panic-assertion and
> >  	 * not have preempt disabled. Some functions called from here want
> >  	 * preempt to be disabled. No point enabling it later though...
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Only one CPU is allowed to execute the panic code. For multiple
> > +	 * parallel invocations of panic all other CPUs will wait on the
> > +	 * panic_lock. They are stopped afterwards by smp_send_stop().
> >  	 */
> > -	preempt_disable();
> > +	spin_lock(&panic_lock);
> >  
> >  	console_verbose();
> >  	bust_spinlocks(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/