linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hardlockup: detect hard lockups without NMIs using secondary cpus

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:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:17:51 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	liu chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hardlockup: detect hard lockups without NMIs using
 secondary cpus

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:27:28AM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:57:39PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> >> Emulate NMIs on systems where they are not available by using timer
> >> interrupts on other cpus.  Each cpu will use its softlockup hrtimer
> >> to check that the next cpu is processing hrtimer interrupts by
> >> verifying that a counter is increasing.
> >>
> >> This patch is useful on systems where the hardlockup detector is not
> >> available due to a lack of NMIs, for example most ARM SoCs.
> >
> > I have seen other cpus, like Sparc I think, create a 'virtual NMI' by
> > reserving an IRQ line as 'special' (can not be masked).  Not sure if that
> > is something worth looking at here (or even possible).
> >
> >> Without this patch any cpu stuck with interrupts disabled can
> >> cause a hardware watchdog reset with no debugging information,
> >> but with this patch the kernel can detect the lockup and panic,
> >> which can result in useful debugging info.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_OTHER_CPU
> >> +static int is_hardlockup_other_cpu(int cpu)
> >> +{
> >> +     unsigned long hrint = per_cpu(hrtimer_interrupts, cpu);
> >> +
> >> +     if (per_cpu(hrtimer_interrupts_saved, cpu) == hrint)
> >> +             return 1;
> >> +
> >> +     per_cpu(hrtimer_interrupts_saved, cpu) = hrint;
> >> +     return 0;
> >
> > Will this race with the other cpu you are checking?  For example if cpuA
> > just updated its hrtimer_interrupts_saved and cpuB goes to check cpuA's
> > hrtimer_interrupts_saved, it seems possible that cpuB could falsely assume
> > cpuA is stuck?
> 
> cpuA doesn't update its own hrtimer_interrupts_saved, cpuB does.
> However, there may be a similar race condition during hotplug if cpuB
> updates hrtimer_interrupts_saved for cpuA, then goes offline, then
> cpuC may try to check cpuA and see that hrtimer_interrupts_saved ==
> hrtimer_interrupts.  I think this can be solved by setting
> watchdog_nmi_touch for the next cpu when a cpu goes online or offline.

Ah, that is where my misunderstanding was.  I overlooked the fact that it
was only updated by the other cpu.  Sorry about that.

I'll re-review it again with that in mind.

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/