[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150825145258.GS16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:52:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO
<hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 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>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI
<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and crash_kexec()
called directly
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 02:35:24AM +0000, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:45:43PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> > > void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > {
> > > + int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * `old_cpu == -1' means we are the first comer and crash_kexec()
> > > + * was called without entering panic().
> > > + * `old_cpu == this_cpu' means crash_kexec() was called from panic().
> > > + */
> > > + this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > > + old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
> > > + if (old_cpu != -1 && old_cpu != this_cpu)
> > > + return;
> >
> > This allows recursive calling of crash_kexec(), the Changelog did not
> > mention that. Is this really required?
>
> What part are you arguing? Recursive call of crash_kexec() doesn't
> happen. In the first place, one of the purpose of this patch is
> to prevent a recursive call of crash_kexec() in the following case
> as I stated in the description:
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> <NMI>
> io_check_error()
> panic()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // failed to acquire
> infinite loop
>
Yes, but what to we want to do there? It seems to me that is wrong, we
do not want to let a recursive crash_kexec() proceed.
Whereas the condition you created explicitly allows this recursion by
virtue of the 'old_cpu != this_cpu' check.
You changelog does not explain why you want a recursive crash_kexec().
> Also, the logic doesn't change form V1 (although the implementation
> changed), so I didn't add changelogs any more.
I cannot remember V1, nor can any prior patch be relevant.
--
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