linux-kernel - Re: suspend regression in 4.1-rc1

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:	Mon, 18 May 2015 11:31:50 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: suspend regression in 4.1-rc1

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> This doesn't hang anymore. I've just had to move the mutex definition
> up to make it compile. So feel free to add my

I've also fixed a lock leak, see goto unlock :-)

> Reported-and-tested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

*blink* that actually fixed it..

That somewhat leaves me at a loss explaining how s2r was failing.

---
Subject: watchdog: Fix merge 'conflict'

Two watchdog changes that came through different trees had a non
conflicting conflict, that is, one changed the semantics of a variable
but no actual code conflict happened. So the merge appeared fine, but
the resulting code did not behave as expected.

Commit 195daf665a62 ("watchdog: enable the new user interface of the
watchdog mechanism") changes the semantics of watchdog_user_enabled,
which thereafter is only used by the functions introduced by
b3738d293233 ("watchdog: Add watchdog enable/disable all functions").

There further appears to be a distinct lack of serialization between
setting and using watchdog_enabled, so perhaps we should wrap the
{en,dis}able_all() things in watchdog_proc_mutex.

This patch fixes a s2r failure reported by Michal; which I cannot
readily explain. But this does make the code internally consistent
again.

Reported-and-tested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 kernel/watchdog.c |   20 +++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 2316f50..506edcc5 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -41,6 +41,8 @@
 #define NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED      (1 << NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED_BIT)
 #define SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED     (1 << SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED_BIT)
 
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(watchdog_proc_mutex);
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
 static unsigned long __read_mostly watchdog_enabled = SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED|NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED;
 #else
@@ -608,26 +610,36 @@ void watchdog_nmi_enable_all(void)
 {
 	int cpu;
 
-	if (!watchdog_user_enabled)
-		return;
+	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
+
+	if (!(watchdog_enabled & NMI_WATCHDOG_ENABLED))
+		goto unlock;
 
 	get_online_cpus();
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		watchdog_nmi_enable(cpu);
 	put_online_cpus();
+
+unlock:
+	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
 }
 
 void watchdog_nmi_disable_all(void)
 {
 	int cpu;
 
+	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
+
 	if (!watchdog_running)
-		return;
+		goto unlock;
 
 	get_online_cpus();
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		watchdog_nmi_disable(cpu);
 	put_online_cpus();
+
+unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
 }
 #else
 static int watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
@@ -744,8 +756,6 @@ static int proc_watchdog_update(void)
 
 }
 
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(watchdog_proc_mutex);
-
 /*
  * common function for watchdog, nmi_watchdog and soft_watchdog parameter
  *
--
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/