linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pstore: avoid recursive spinlocks in the oops_in

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120926233553.GA7203@lizard>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:35:56 -0700
From:	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: avoid recursive spinlocks in the
 oops_in_progress case

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:02:35PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > And my plan was to get rid of the fact that backends touch pstore->buf
> > directly. Backends would always receive anonymous 'buf' pointer (we
> > already have write_buf callback that does exactly this), and thus it
> 
> It feels like we are just shuffling the lock problem from one place
> to another.  In the panic case we have to use a pre-allocated buffer
> (hoping that we can allocate one seems to be a foolish plan).

Yes, we definitely need some buffer pre-allocated for panics, so I have no
plans to get rid of the 'buf' -- both 'buf' and 'buf_lock' are going to
stay. But it will not be multi-purpose anymore (which I see as an
improvement).

The thing is, what I dislike is the whole console_write routine:

static void pstore_console_write(struct console *con, const char *s, unsigned c)
{
	const char *e = s + c;

	while (s < e) {
		unsigned long flags;

		if (c > psinfo->bufsize)
			c = psinfo->bufsize;
		spin_lock_irqsave(&psinfo->buf_lock, flags);
		memcpy(psinfo->buf, s, c);
		psinfo->write(PSTORE_TYPE_CONSOLE, 0, NULL, 0, c, psinfo);
		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&psinfo->buf_lock, flags);
		s += c;
		c = e - s;
	}
}

It's bad not because of the locks, but because we unnecessary copy things
around -- and that's the only reason why we need the lock in the first
place.

With write_buf, the above would turn into just:

static void pstore_console_write(struct console *con, const char *s, unsigned c)
{
	psinfo->write_buf(PSTORE_TYPE_CONSOLE, 0, NULL, 0, s, c, psinfo);
}

Of course, this assumes that write_buf does its own hw/driver-specific
protection, but only if necessary: for ram backend no locks would be
necessary at all.

And as it appears, both erst and efivars drivers do their own locks in the
->write callback anyways. (Btw, efi pstore backend just grabs its lock w/o
trying it first, is it in trouble?)


But for panic case, we will use buf and buf_lock:

pstore_dump()
{
	lock(buf_lock);
	...
	psinfo->write_buf(PSTORE_TYPE_DMESG, ..., psinfo->buf, ...);
	...
	unlock(buf_lock);
}

So, we will use them, but only when necessary (for dumping). We can think
of them as dump_buf and dump_buf_lock, because that's the only when this
stuff will be needed, actually.

Thanks,
Anton.
--
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/