linux-kernel - Re: Another preempt folding issue?

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, 13 Feb 2014 19:03:56 +0100
From:	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	MASAO TAKAHASHI <masao-takahashi@...no.co.jp>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: Another preempt folding issue?

On 13.02.2014 18:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:00:19PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 12.02.2014 12:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:09:29PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>> Something else here I run a kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT not set and NR_CPUS
>>>> limited to 8 (for the 32bit kernel). So the default apic driver is used. Since
>>>> default_send_IPI_mask_logical is only used from there, I assume the trace you
>>>> got does the same. Maybe something there is wrong which would explain why we
>>>> only see it on 32bit hosts.
>>>
>>> Can you try with a different APIC driver to test this?
>>>
>> I don't think I can. And I think the statement about this only be used for 32bit
>> could be wrong. I got mislead to think so because those are only defined in
>> probe_32 but the 64bit counterpart isn't containing much aside that.
>>
>> Anyway, I played around with tracing a bit more. So with this change:
>>
>>                 if (need_resched()) {
>>                         srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>>                         if (need_resched() != should_resched()) {
>> +                               trace_printk("need(%i) != should(%i)\n",
>> +                                       need_resched(), should_resched());
>> +                               trace_printk("exit_reason=%u\n",
>> +                                       vcpu->run->exit_reason);
>> +                                trace_printk("preempt_count=%lx\n",
>> +                                        __this_cpu_read_4(__preempt_count));
>> +                                tracing_stop();
>> +                                printk(KERN_ERR "Stopped tracing, due to
>> inconsistent state.\n");
>>                         }
>>  +                      schedule();
>>  -                      cond_reschedule();
>>                         vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>>                 }
>>
>> I get the following (weird) output:
>>
>>             Xorg-1078  [001] d...    71.270251: native_smp_send_reschedule
>> <-resched_task
>>             Xorg-1078  [001] d...    71.270251: default_send_IPI_mask_logical
>> <-native_smp_send_reschedule
>>       bamfdaemon-2318  [001] d...    71.270465: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>>       bamfdaemon-2318  [001] d...    71.270539: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270689: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270827: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270940: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] dn..    71.270999: smp_reschedule_interrupt
>> <-reschedule_interrupt
>>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] dn..    71.270999: scheduler_ipi
>> <-smp_reschedule_interrupt
>>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271001: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run: need(1)
>> != should(0)
>>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271002: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run:
>> exit_reason=2
>>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271003: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run:
>> preempt_count=0
>>
>> So am I reading this right, that the interrupt did get delivered to cpu#0 while
>> the thread info already had the resched flag set. So this really should have
>> cleared the bit in preempt_count. But while the trace info shows 'N' for some
>> reason should_reschedule returns false but at the same time reading the preempt
>> count manually shows it 0?
> 
> *blink*... That's weird indeed... do you have the asm that goes along
> with that?
> 
Yeah... not sure the interleaved source helps or not ...



Download attachment "kvm-x86.disass.gz" of type "application/x-gzip" (259965 bytes)

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (902 bytes)