linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:41:42 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu_backtrace()
 methods

On 3/17/2016 6:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 06:31:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 3/17/2016 3:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:02:10PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>>> Currently you can only request a backtrace of either all cpus, or
>>>> all cpus but yourself.  It can also be helpful to request a remote
>>>> backtrace of a single cpu, and since we want that, the logical
>>>> extension is to support a cpumask as the underlying primitive.
>>>>
>>>> This change modifies the existing lib/nmi_backtrace.c code to take
>>>> a cpumask as its basic primitive, and modifies the linux/nmi.h code
>>>> to use either the old "all/all_but_self" arch methods, or the new
>>>> "cpumask" method, depending on which is available.
>>>>
>>>> The existing clients of nmi_backtrace (arm and x86) are converted
>>>> to using the new cpumask approach in this change.
>>> So the past days I've been staring at RCU stall warns, and they can use
>>> a little of this. Their remote stack unwinds are less than useful.
>> Were you suggesting this as an improvement for a possible v3, or just a
>> kind of implicit ack of the patch series?  Thanks!
> A suggestion more like. I've not actually looked at the 4th patch.
>
> I'll try and fold the patches into the runs I do tomorrow, I'm sure to
> trigger lots of fail. Maybe I'll even do that RCU patch.

The build bot caught the fact that I missed arch/xtensa since it doesn't use
LOCK_TEXT, so if you're testing on that (ok maybe unlikely) you can add this:

diff --git a/arch/xtensa/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/xtensa/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index c417cbe4ec87..18a174c7fb87 100644
--- a/arch/xtensa/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/xtensa/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ SECTIONS
      VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__sched_text_start) = .;
      *(.sched.literal .sched.text)
      VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__sched_text_end) = .;
+    VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__cpuidle_text_start) = .;
+    *(.cpuidle.literal .cpuidle.text)
+    VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__cpuidle_text_end) = .;
      VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__lock_text_start) = .;
      *(.spinlock.literal .spinlock.text)
      VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__lock_text_end) = .;


-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com