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: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:33:35 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: rcu warnings cause stack overflow On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:11:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:52:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 01:27:42PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:14:48PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > Removing the WARN_ON_ONCE will fix this and, if lockdep is turned on, still > > > > > > will find illegal uses. But it won't work for lockdep off configs... > > > > > > So we probably want something better than the patch below. > > > > > > > > > > Ah ok. Hmm, but why are you using an exception to implement WARN_ON() > > > > > in s390? Is it to have a whole new stack for the warning path in order > > > > > to avoid stack overflow from the place that called the WARN_ON() ? > > > > > > > > The reason was to reduce the code footprint of the WARN_ON() and also > > > > be able to print the register contents at the time the warning happened. > > > > > > Ah ok, makes sense. > > > > So Frederic should push his anti-recursion patch, then? > > Yes, please. > > Tested-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> > > It still generates recursive warnings because the WARNON_ONCE is inlined and > every different usage will generate an exception, but it didn't produce a > stack overflow anymore. > To avoid the recursive warning the patch below would help. Not sure if it's > worth it... > > Subject: [PATCH] rcu: move rcu_is_cpu_idle() check warning into C file > > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> > > rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() generate a warning if a cpu is in > extended quiescant state. Since these functions are inlined this can cause > a lot of warnings if in the processing of the WARN_ON_ONCE() there is > another usage of e.g. rcu_read_lock(). To make sure we only get one > warning (and avoid possible stack overflows) uninline the check. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> > --- > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 9 +++++++-- > kernel/rcupdate.c | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > index 81c04f4..9fe7be5 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > @@ -230,22 +230,27 @@ static inline void destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(struct rcu_head *head) > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU > extern int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void); > +extern void rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(void); > #else /* !CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */ > static inline int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void) > { > return 0; > } > + > +static inline void rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(void) > +{ > +} > #endif /* else !CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */ > > static inline void rcu_lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *map) > { > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > + rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(); Thank you for the patch, but this WARN_ON_ONCE() has now been removed in favor of lockdep-RCU checks elsewhere. This has the advantage of leveraging lockdep's splat-once and anti-recursion facilities. So I believe that current -rcu covers this. (And yes, I do need to push my most recent changes out.) Thanx, Paul > lock_acquire(map, 0, 0, 2, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_); > } > > static inline void rcu_lock_release(struct lockdep_map *map) > { > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > + rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(); > lock_release(map, 1, _THIS_IP_); > } > > diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c > index 2bc4e13..5deca18 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c > +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c > @@ -141,6 +141,12 @@ int rcu_my_thread_group_empty(void) > return thread_group_empty(current); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_my_thread_group_empty); > + > +void rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(void) > +{ > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle); > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD -- 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