[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150729082329.GA15801@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:23:30 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO
<hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI
<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [V2 PATCH 1/3] x86/panic: Fix re-entrance problem due to
panic on NMI
On Wed 29-07-15 05:48:47, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hidehiro Kawai
> > (2015/07/27 23:34), Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 27-07-15 10:58:50, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> [...]
> > > The check could be also relaxed a bit and nmi_panic would
> > > return only if the ongoing panic is the current cpu when we really have
> > > to return and allow the preempted panic to finish.
> >
> > It's reasonable. I'll do that in the next version.
>
> I noticed atomic_read() is insufficient. Please consider the following
> scenario.
>
> CPU 1: call panic() in the normal context
> CPU 0: call nmi_panic(), check the value of panic_cpu, then call panic()
> CPU 1: set 1 to panic_cpu
> CPU 0: fail to set 0 to panic_cpu, then do an infinite loop
> CPU 1: call crash_kexec(), then call kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus()
>
> At this point, since CPU 0 loops in NMI context, it never executes
> the NMI handler registered by kdump_nmi_shootdown_cpus(). This means
> that no register states are saved and no cleanups for VMX/SVM are
> performed.
Yes this is true but it is no different from the current state, isn't
it? So if you want to handle that then it deserves a separate patch.
It is certainly not harmful wrt. panic behavior.
> So, we should still use atomic_cmpxchg() in nmi_panic() to
> prevent other cpus from running panic routines.
Not sure what you mean by that.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists