linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:119 native_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]

Date:	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:02:50 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:119
 native_smp_send_reschedule+0x25/0x43()

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:03:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, so a 'modern' kernel does it slightly different and I've no idea
> > what exactly goes wrong in your vintage version. But I can see the
> > current stuff going at it all wrong.
> > 
> > What seems to happen is that native_nmi_stop_other_cpus() NMI broadcasts
> > for smp_stop_nmi_callback()->stop_this_cpu(). Which without any
> > serialization what so ever marks all remote CPUs offline and calls halt
> > with IRQs disabled -> dead.
> > 
> > While we're waiting for this all to complete, the scheduler tries to
> > no_hz load-balance and kick a cpu it thinks is still around and we get
> > the above splat because the NMI just marked it offline without telling
> > anybody about it.
> > 
> > Now, arguably you don't want to go through the whole hotplug crap to
> > shut down your machine, esp not on panic, but clearing the online state
> > without telling anybody about it is bound to lead to these things.
> > 
> > No immediate solution comes to mind... 
> 
> Don, any reason you wait for the NMI broadcast to complete with IRQs
> enabled? If you disable IRQs before the broadcast the interrupt can't
> happen and should side-step this particular problem.

Well I believe the old way had the same problem using the REBOOT_IRQ as
opposed to NMI.  I also don't know how to shutdown interrupts system wide
without just broadcasting an IRQ to locally disable interrupts.

> 
> Its not like we have 'latency' issues on this path :-)

Heh.  Oddly I was writing the changelog for a patch that kinda changes
this path to sorta revert back to the old way of using a REBOOT_IRQ with
an NMI follow-on when the IRQ fails.

Originally, I wanted to make sure the cpus were shutdown immediately so we
can serialize the panic path hence the original change.

I also ran into the same problem you did and hacked up another patch that
checked a global atomic variable that let the system know we were shutting
down and not to do the WARN_ON (the global is already created for the NMI
case now).

I'll try to post that soon once I finish my long winded changelog.

Though it kinda addresses your issue, I'm not sure it does it in a way
that will satisfy you.  But I look forward to the discussion. :-)

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/