linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: BUG appearing when trying to allocate interrupt on Exynos MCT after CPU hotplug

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: <54494BEE.9020702@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:41:50 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Marcin Jabrzyk <m.jabrzyk@...sung.com>
CC:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: BUG  appearing when trying to allocate interrupt on Exynos MCT after CPU hotplug

On 10/23/2014 07:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
>> [1.] One line summary of the problem: "BUG: sleeping function called from
>> invalid context at mm/slub.c:1250" after CPU hotplug
> I'm really not surprised.
>
>> When SoC have MCT_INT_SPI interrupt it is being allocated after hotplugging
>> of the CPU, secondary_start_kernel() is sending CPU boot notifications which
>> are send when preemption and interrupts are disabled. Exynos_mct
>> notification handler tries to set up and allocate IRQ for SPI type interrupt
>> for started CPU and then BUG appears.
>> There might be similar problem on qcom-timer I think just after looking on
>> the code.

There's no problem for qcom-timer because there are only PPIs on SMP
platforms.

> The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
> with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING.  Interrupts
> at this point /must/ remain disabled.
>
> The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
> tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by calling
> request_irq().  Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never been
> permissible.
>
> So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was written.
> It /couldn't/ have been tested.  It looks like this commit added this
> buggy code:
>
> commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
> Author: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
> Date:   Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
>
>     ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>
>     Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
>     allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
>     gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
>
>     Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
>     Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>     Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>

I'm not so sure. It looks like in that patch I didn't change anything
with respect to when things are called. In fact, it looks like we were
calling setup_irq() there, but another patch around the same time
changed that to request_irq()

commit 7114cd749a12ff9fd64a2f6f04919760f45ab183
Author: Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>
Date:   Wed Jun 19 00:29:35 2013 +0900

    clocksource: exynos_mct: use (request/free)_irq calls for local timer registration
    
    Replace the (setup/remove)_irq calls for local timer registration with
    (request/free)_irq calls. This generalizes the local timer registration API.
    Suggested by Mark Rutland.
    
    Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>
    Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
    Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
    Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>

I don't believe setup_irq() allocates anything so we should probably go
back to using that over request_irq() or explore requesting the irqs
once and then enabling/disabling instead.

> A good question would be: why doesn't this happen at boot time when CPU1
> is first brought up?  The conditions here are no different from hotplugging
> CPU1 back in.  Do you see a similar warning on boot too?
>

Probably because such checks are completely avoided until the system
state is switched to SYSTEM_RUNNING (see the first if statement in
__might_sleep()). It would be nice if we could remove that.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
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/