linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 3.18] ring-buffer: Mark irq_work as HARD

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: <552FC72A.8060709@siemens.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:28:58 +0200
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 3.18] ring-buffer: Mark irq_work as HARD_IRQ to prevent
 deadlocks

On 2015-04-16 16:26, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 04:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> ftrace may trigger rb_wakeups while holding pi_lock which will also be
>> requested via trace_...->...->ring_buffer_unlock_commit->...->
>> irq_work_queue->raise_softirq->try_to_wake_up. This quickly causes
>> deadlocks when trying to use ftrace under -rt.
>>
>> Resolve this by marking the ring buffer's irq_work as HARD_IRQ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I'm not yet sure if this doesn't push work into hard-irq context that
>> is better not done there on -rt.
> 
> everything should be done in the soft-irq.
> 
>>
>> I'm also not sure if there aren't more such cases, given that -rt turns
>> the default irq_work wakeup policy around. But maybe we are lucky.
> 
> The only thing that is getting done in the hardirq is the FULL_NO_HZ
> thingy. I would be _very_ glad if we could keep it that way.

Then - to my current understanding - we need an NMI-safe trigger for
soft-irq work. Is there anything like this existing already? Or can we
still use the IPI-based kick without actually doing the work in hard-irq
context?

Jan

> 
>>  kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> index f4fbbfc..6a1939e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> @@ -1252,6 +1252,7 @@ rb_allocate_cpu_buffer(struct ring_buffer *buffer, int nr_pages, int cpu)
>>  	init_irq_work(&cpu_buffer->irq_work.work, rb_wake_up_waiters);
>>  	init_waitqueue_head(&cpu_buffer->irq_work.waiters);
>>  	init_waitqueue_head(&cpu_buffer->irq_work.full_waiters);
>> +	cpu_buffer->irq_work.work.flags = IRQ_WORK_HARD_IRQ;
>>  
>>  	bpage = kzalloc_node(ALIGN(sizeof(*bpage), cache_line_size()),
>>  			    GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
>>
> 
> Sebastian
> 

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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/