linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this

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]

Message-Id: <20140304142727.3e6d260c752c2e2ebd49260e@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:27 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:

> [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops]
> 
> We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the
> include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are
> modified to invoke the preemption check.
> 
> --- linux.orig/lib/smp_processor_id.c	2014-01-30 14:40:50.936519233 -0600
> +++ linux/lib/smp_processor_id.c	2014-01-30 14:40:50.936519233 -0600
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>  #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  
> -notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor_id(void)
> +notrace static unsigned int check_preemption_disabled(char *what)
>  {
>  	int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  
> @@ -38,9 +38,9 @@
>  	if (!printk_ratelimit())
>  		goto out_enable;
>  
> -	printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [%08x] "
> -			"code: %s/%d\n",
> -			preempt_count() - 1, current->comm, current->pid);
> +	printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: using %s in preemptible [%08x] code: %s/%d\n",
> +		what, preempt_count() - 1, current->comm, current->pid);
> +
>  	print_symbol("caller is %s\n", (long)__builtin_return_address(0));
>  	dump_stack();

I wonder if there's any point in printing __builtin_return_address. 
Doesn't dump_stack() tell us the same thing?

> @@ -50,5 +50,17 @@
>  	return this_cpu;
>  }
>  
> +notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor_id(void)
> +{
> +	return check_preemption_disabled("smp_processor_id()");
> +}
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(debug_smp_processor_id);
>  
> +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(const char *op)
> +{
> +	char text[40];
> +
> +	snprintf(text, sizeof(text), "__this_cpu_%s()", op);
> +	check_preemption_disabled(text);
> +}

I'd like to see a comment here telling scared readers why this can
never overflow text[].

--
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/