linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] printk/nmi: Increase the size of NMI buffer and make it configurable

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]

Message-Id: <20151211153054.48da5d4139b93dd4ed438f4c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:30:54 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Cris <linux-cris-kernel@...s.com>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] printk/nmi: Increase the size of NMI buffer and
 make it configurable

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:21:13 +0000 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:57:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This is a bit messy.  NEED_PRINTK_NMI is an added-on hack for one
> > particular arm variant.  From the changelog:
> > 
> >    "One exception is arm where the deferred printing is used for
> >     printing backtraces even without NMI.  For this purpose, we define
> >     NEED_PRINTK_NMI Kconfig flag.  The alternative printk_func is
> >     explicitly set when IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE is handled."
> > 
> > 
> > - why does arm needs deferred printing for backtraces?
> > 
> > - why is this specific to CONFIG_CPU_V7M?
> > 
> > - can this Kconfig logic be cleaned up a bit?
> 
> I think this comes purely from this attempt to apply another round of
> cleanups to the nmi backtrace work I did.
> 
> As I explained when I did that work, the vast majority of ARM platforms
> are unable to trigger anything like a NMI - the FIQ is something that's
> generally a property of the secure monitor, and is not accessible to
> Linux.  However, there are platforms where it is accessible.

OK, thanks.  So "not needed at present, might be needed in the future,
useful for out-of-tree debug code"?

> I'm personally happy with the existing code, and I've been wondering why
> there's this effort to apply further cleanups - to me, the changelogs
> don't seem to make that much sense, unless we want to start using
> printk() extensively in NMI functions - using the generic nmi backtrace
> code surely gets us something that works across all architectures...

Yes, I was scratching my head over that.  The patchset takes an nmi-safe
all-cpu-backtrace and generalises that into an nmi-safe printk.  That
*sounds* like a good thing to do but yes, some additional justification
would be helpful.  What real-world value does this patchset really
bring to real-world users?

--
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/