linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

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: <20160321084743.GB2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:47:43 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:07:51PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:35:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (03/21/16 09:56), Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > > +	if (!sync_print) {
> > > > > > +		if (in_sched) {
> > > > > > +			/*
> > > > > > +			 * @in_sched messages may come too early, when we don't
> > > > > > +			 * yet have @printk_kthread. We can't print deferred
> > > > > > +			 * messages directly, because this may deadlock, route
> > > > > > +			 * them via IRQ context.
> > > > > > +			 */
> > > > > > +			__this_cpu_or(printk_pending,
> > > > > > +					PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> > > > > > +			irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> > > > > > +		} else if (printk_kthread && !in_panic) {
> > > > > > +			/* Offload printing to a schedulable context. */
> > > > > > +			wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> > > > > 
> > > > > It will not print the "lockup suspected" message at all, for e.g. rq->lock,
> > > > > p->pi_lock and any locks which are used within wake_up_process().
> > > > 
> > > > this will switch to old SYNC printk() mode should such a lockup ever
> > > > happen, which is a giant advantage over any other implementation; doing
> > > > wake_up_process() within the 'we can detect recursive printk() here'
> > > > gives us better control.
> > > > 
> > > > why
> > > >   printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ->wake_up_process()->spin_dump()->printk()->IRQ...
> > > > is better?
> > > 
> > > What is IRQ?
> > 
> > this is how printk() can print the messages in async mode apart from
> > direct and wake_up_process() in vprintk_emit().
> 
> Do you mean IRQ work?
> 
> Is there any reason why you don't put the wake_up_process() out of the
> critical section with my suggestion, even though it can solve the infinite
> recuresion you worried about?

Just to be sure, whether you take my suggestion or not is not important.
I just suggested it in this thread since it can solve what you worried
about. That's all. I can post it in another thread though. Why don't you
consider it so that yours don't miss any printk message? Do you think there
are any problems in my suggestion?

> 
> > 
> > 	-ss
> > 
> > > > > Furtheremore, any printk() within wake_up_process() cannot work at all, as
> > > > > well.
> > > > 
> > > > there is printk_deferred() which has LOGLEVEL_SCHED and which must be used
> > > > in sched functions.
> > > 
> > > It would be good for all scheduler code to use the printk_deferred() as you
> > > said, but it's not true yet.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 	-ss
> > >