[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151124130556.GI29472@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:05:57 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Hidehiro Kawai <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>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and crash_kexec()
called directly
On Fri 20-11-15 18:36:48, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Currently, panic() and crash_kexec() can be called at the same time.
> For example (x86 case):
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> nmi_shootdown_cpus() // stop other cpus
>
> CPU 1:
> panic()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // failed to acquire
> smp_send_stop() // stop other cpus
> infinite loop
>
> If CPU 1 calls smp_send_stop() before nmi_shootdown_cpus(), kdump
> fails.
>
> In another case:
>
> CPU 0:
> oops_end()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // acquired
> <NMI>
> io_check_error()
> panic()
> crash_kexec()
> mutex_trylock() // failed to acquire
> infinite loop
>
> Clearly, this is an undesirable result.
>
> To fix this problem, this patch changes crash_kexec() to exclude
> others by using atomic_t panic_cpu.
>
> V5:
> - Add missing dummy __crash_kexec() for !CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE case
> - Replace atomic_xchg() with atomic_set() in crash_kexec() because
> it is used as a release operation and there is no need of memory
> barrier effect. This change also removes an unused value warning
>
> V4:
> - Use new __crash_kexec(), no exclusion check version of crash_kexec(),
> instead of checking if panic_cpu is the current cpu or not
>
> V2:
> - Use atomic_cmpxchg() instead of spin_trylock() on panic_lock
> to exclude concurrent accesses
> - Don't introduce no-lock version of crash_kexec()
>
> Signed-off-by: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
> Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Looks good to me as well
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
[...]
> +void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> + * Only one CPU is allowed to execute the crash_kexec() code as with
> + * panic(). Otherwise parallel calls of panic() and crash_kexec()
> + * may stop each other. To exclude them, we use panic_cpu here too.
> + */
> + this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> + old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
> + if (old_cpu == -1) {
> + /* This is the 1st CPU which comes here, so go ahead. */
> + __crash_kexec(regs);
> +
> + /*
> + * Reset panic_cpu to allow another panic()/crash_kexec()
> + * call.
> + */
> + atomic_set(&panic_cpu, -1);
This was slighly more obvious in the previous version where the reset
happened after the trylock on the mutex failed, maybe the comment could
be more specific
+ /*
+ * Reset panic_cpu to allow another panic()/crash_kexec()
+ * call if __crash_kexec couldn't handle the situation.
+ */
--
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