| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANVTcTZ-ZkTvR0+=eFyNQ7E8R2UYo1qdA-RQ+9nzK2w=qCPkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:41:09 +0800
From: rui wang <ruiv.wang@...il.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
janet.morgan@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, Fix do_IRQ interrupt warning for cpu hotplug
retriggered irqs
On 12/2/13, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64831
>
> When downing a cpu it is possible that there are unhandled irqs left in
> the APIC IRR register. fixup_irqs() goes through the IRR and retriggers
> the IRQs left in the APIC IRR. After this, the vector for the irq is set
> to -1. There is a possibility here, however, that the CPU does handle an
> irq in the IRR and then calls the vector.
>
The patch does not seem to root-cause the problem. It seems to hide
the real problem.
It is not possible that a device-triggered irq can arrive to this cpu
again after fixup_irqs() fills its vector_irq[vector] to -1, because
we've done the following:
1. We disabled interrupt on this cpu in stop_machine().
2. We called irq_set_affinity() to exclude this cpu as a target for the irq.
3. We checked APIC_IRR and re-triggered any pending irqs to other cpus.
So the root cause of this spruious irq isn't found yet. I notice that
there's a mdelay(1) in fixup_irqs() which claims to be able to avoid
spurious irqs, but with no reasoning there.
The only way this irq can come again is through IPI. One possibility
is that cpu_online_mask() isn't protected by a spin lock, so if there
are other cpus being offlined simultaneously, then they may read wrong
cpu_online_mask due to contention, thus re-triggering pending irqs to
this offlined cpu. So the mdelay(1) can wait for that IPI to come and
we can catch it by checking APIC_IRR...But mdelay(1) may not be long
enough so you still see the spurious event and ended up with this
patch. I didn't do any test, just trying some thought experiments.
So why isn't cpu_online_mask() protected by a spin lock?
Thanks
Rui
> When this happens, do_IRQ() spits out a warning like
>
> kernel: [ 612.014573] do_IRQ: 56.134 No irq handler for vector (irq -1)
>
> I added a debug printk to output which CPU & vector was retriggered and
> discovered that that we are getting bogus events. This patchset resolves
> this by adding definitions for VECTOR_UNDEFINED(-1) and
> VECTOR_RETRIGGERED(-2) and modifying the code to use them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
> Cc: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> Cc: janet.morgan@...el.com
> Cc: tony.luck@...el.com
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 13 +++++++------
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c | 4 ++--
> 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h
> index 92b3bae..22c425e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h
> @@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ extern __visible void smp_invalidate_interrupt(struct
> pt_regs *);
>
> extern void (*__initconst
> interrupt[NR_VECTORS-FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR])(void);
>
> +#define VECTOR_UNDEFINED -1
> +#define VECTOR_RETRIGGERED -2
> typedef int vector_irq_t[NR_VECTORS];
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(vector_irq_t, vector_irq);
> extern void setup_vector_irq(int cpu);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> index e63a5bd..6e1541c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> @@ -1143,7 +1143,8 @@ next:
> goto next;
>
> for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
> - if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector] != -1)
> + if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector] >
> + VECTOR_UNDEFINED)
> goto next;
> /* Found one! */
> current_vector = vector;
> @@ -1183,7 +1184,7 @@ static void __clear_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg
> *cfg)
>
> vector = cfg->vector;
> for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cfg->domain, cpu_online_mask)
> - per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = -1;
> + per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = VECTOR_UNDEFINED;
>
> cfg->vector = 0;
> cpumask_clear(cfg->domain);
> @@ -1195,7 +1196,7 @@ static void __clear_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg
> *cfg)
> vector++) {
> if (per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] != irq)
> continue;
> - per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = -1;
> + per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = VECTOR_UNDEFINED;
> break;
> }
> }
> @@ -1228,12 +1229,12 @@ void __setup_vector_irq(int cpu)
> /* Mark the free vectors */
> for (vector = 0; vector < NR_VECTORS; ++vector) {
> irq = per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector];
> - if (irq < 0)
> + if (irq <= VECTOR_UNDEFINED)
> continue;
>
> cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cfg->domain))
> - per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = -1;
> + per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = VECTOR_UNDEFINED;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&vector_lock);
> }
> @@ -2208,7 +2209,7 @@ asmlinkage void smp_irq_move_cleanup_interrupt(void)
> struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> irq = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]);
>
> - if (irq == -1)
> + if (irq <= VECTOR_UNDEFINED)
> continue;
>
> desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> index 22d0687..030f0e2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -193,9 +193,10 @@ __visible unsigned int __irq_entry do_IRQ(struct
> pt_regs *regs)
> if (!handle_irq(irq, regs)) {
> ack_APIC_irq();
>
> - if (printk_ratelimit())
> - pr_emerg("%s: %d.%d No irq handler for vector (irq %d)\n",
> - __func__, smp_processor_id(), vector, irq);
> + if (irq != VECTOR_RETRIGGERED)
> + pr_emerg_ratelimited("%s: %d.%d No irq handler for vector (irq %d)\n",
> + __func__, smp_processor_id(),
> + vector, irq);
> }
>
> irq_exit();
> @@ -344,7 +345,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> for (vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR; vector < NR_VECTORS; vector++) {
> unsigned int irr;
>
> - if (__this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]) < 0)
> + if (__this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]) <= VECTOR_UNDEFINED)
> continue;
>
> irr = apic_read(APIC_IRR + (vector / 32 * 0x10));
> @@ -355,11 +356,15 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
> chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
> raw_spin_lock(&desc->lock);
> - if (chip->irq_retrigger)
> + if (chip->irq_retrigger) {
> chip->irq_retrigger(data);
> + __this_cpu_write(vector_irq[vector],
> + VECTOR_RETRIGGERED);
> + }
> raw_spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
> }
> - __this_cpu_write(vector_irq[vector], -1);
> + if (__this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]) != VECTOR_RETRIGGERED)
> + __this_cpu_write(vector_irq[vector], VECTOR_UNDEFINED);
> }
> }
> #endif
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c
> index a2a1fbc..7f50156 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static struct irqaction irq2 = {
> };
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(vector_irq_t, vector_irq) = {
> - [0 ... NR_VECTORS - 1] = -1,
> + [0 ... NR_VECTORS - 1] = VECTOR_UNDEFINED,
> };
>
> int vector_used_by_percpu_irq(unsigned int vector)
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int vector_used_by_percpu_irq(unsigned int vector)
> int cpu;
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> - if (per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] != -1)
> + if (per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] > VECTOR_UNDEFINED)
> return 1;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.9.3
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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