linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly

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: <5698F420.2010500@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:29:04 +0200
From:	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Keerthy <a0393675@...com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <edubezval@...il.com>, <nm@...com>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<joel@....id.au>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<dyoung@...hat.com>, <josh@...htriplett.org>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly_poweroff

On 01/15/2016 12:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>>> If kernel_power_off() is called then the system should power off. No ifs and
>>> whens.
>>
>> Even if it doesn't the watchdog should kill it.
>>
>> That is broken on some platforms on the watchdog side as the
>> watchdog shuts down during our power off callbacks - because the system
>> firmware is too stupid to reset the watchdog as it powers back up (so
>> keeps rebooting).
>>
>> If you watchdog and firmware function properly you shouldn't even have to
>> care if you crash during the kernel power off.
> 
> That's a good point as well - if the system is 'stuck' for some notion of stuck,
> then watchdog drivers can help.
> 

Seems ARM doesn't have endless loop implemented in machine_power_off() - so,
not too much chances for Watchdog to fire.
void machine_power_off(void)
{
	local_irq_disable();
	smp_send_stop();

	if (pm_power_off)
		pm_power_off();

	--- endless loop ?
	--- or restart ?
}
[and even if it will be there - 20-30sec is usual timeout for Watchdog and this
enough time to burn the system in case of thermal emergency poweroff :(]

> Here it's unclear whether user-space even called the sys_reboot() system call.
> 

That's true - original log [1] has 
Nov 30 11:19:22 [    5.942769] thermal thermal_zone3: critical temperature reached(108 C),shutting down
[...]
Nov 30 11:19:24 [    7.387900] ahci 4a140000.sata: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led clo only pmp pio slum part ccc apst 
Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Switching to runlevel: 0
Nov 30 11:19:24 INIT: Sending processes the TERM signal

and there are no
[  220.004522] reboot: Power down


Also, It's not the first time this part of code is discussed (thermal emergency poweroff) [2],
so the good question, as for me, is it really required and safe to use orderly_poweroff() in
case of thermal emergency poweroff ([3] as example)?

In general, this kind of use case can be simulated using SysRq on any arch
- [3.290034] Freeing unused kernel memory: 492K (c0a67000 - c0ae2000)
  INIT: version 2.88 booting
  Starting udev
^^ The issue most probably might happens when system in the process of loading modules
So, once modules loading process is started - fire Sysrq "poweroff(o)"

[1] http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/14326688/
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/577
[3] http://review.omapzoom.org/#/c/34898/
-- 
regards,
-grygorii