linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 76/83] kernel/debug/debug_core.c: more properly delay for secondary CPUs

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: <20170104200449.610221823@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed,  4 Jan 2017 21:07:08 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 76/83] kernel/debug/debug_core.c: more properly delay for secondary CPUs

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

commit 2d13bb6494c807bcf3f78af0e96c0b8615a94385 upstream.

We've got a delay loop waiting for secondary CPUs.  That loop uses
loops_per_jiffy.  However, loops_per_jiffy doesn't actually mean how
many tight loops make up a jiffy on all architectures.  It is quite
common to see things like this in the boot log:

  Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer
  frequency.. 48.00 BogoMIPS (lpj=24000)

In my case I was seeing lots of cases where other CPUs timed out
entering the debugger only to print their stack crawls shortly after the
kdb> prompt was written.

Elsewhere in kgdb we already use udelay(), so that should be safe enough
to use to implement our timeout.  We'll delay 1 ms for 1000 times, which
should give us a full second of delay (just like the old code wanted)
but allow us to notice that we're done every 1 ms.

[akpm@...ux-foundation.org: simplifications, per Daniel]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1477091361-2039-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/debug/debug_core.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
+++ b/kernel/debug/debug_core.c
@@ -598,11 +598,11 @@ return_normal:
 	/*
 	 * Wait for the other CPUs to be notified and be waiting for us:
 	 */
-	time_left = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
+	time_left = MSEC_PER_SEC;
 	while (kgdb_do_roundup && --time_left &&
 	       (atomic_read(&masters_in_kgdb) + atomic_read(&slaves_in_kgdb)) !=
 		   online_cpus)
-		cpu_relax();
+		udelay(1000);
 	if (!time_left)
 		pr_crit("Timed out waiting for secondary CPUs.\n");