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:   Fri, 23 Dec 2016 10:46:43 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <>
To:     Petr Mladek <>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Jan Kara <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        Calvin Owens <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Hurley <>,,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 6/7] printk: use printk_safe buffers in printk

On (12/22/16 18:10), Petr Mladek wrote:
> There are many callers. I think that such wrappers make sense.
> I would only like to keep naming scheme similar to the classic
> locks. I mean:
> printk_safe_enter_irq()
> printk_safe_exit_irq()
> printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags)
> printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags)


> and
> logbuf_lock_irq()
> logbuf_unlock_irq()
> logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags)
> logbuf_lock_irqrestore(flags)


> I actually like this change. It makes it clear that the operation
> has a side effect (disables/enables irq) which was not visible
> from the original name.


> Well, I wonder how many times we need to call printk_save_enter/exit
> standalone (ouside these macros).

not every switch to printk_safe is "dictated" by logbuf_lock.
down_trylock_console_sem(), for instance, takes semaphore spin_lock
which already may be locked on the same CPU (*), so we need to be
in safe mode:

  raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
  raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)   << deadlock

and so on. IOW, "printk_save_enter()" != "logbuf_lock is acquired".

> The question is if we really need all the variants of
> printk_safe_enter()/exit(). Alternative solution would be
> to handle only the printk_context in pritnk_safe_enter()
> and make sure that it is called with IRQs disabled.
> I mean to define only __printk_safe_enter()/exit()
> and do:
> #define logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags)		\
> 	do {					\
> 		local_irq_save(flags)		\
> 		__printk_safe_enter();		\
> 		raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);	\
> 	} while (0)

won't do the trick for console sem spin_lock.

> PS: I still think if we could come with a better name than
> printk_safe() but I cannot find one.

well, not that I'm the fan of printk_safe name, but can't think
of anything better. we make printk calls safe (deadlock safe) in
places where previously it was unsafe... quick-&-dirty name that
is implementation-specific -- printk_percpu_enter/exit, or
printk_pcpu_enter/exit... dunno.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists