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]

Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:57:23 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	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 04/16/2015 04:28 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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?

But if you trigger it via IPI it will still run in hardirq context,
right? Can you describe how run into this and try to think about it in
a quiet moment. It it just enabling the function tracer and running it?

> Jan

Sebastian

--
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/