linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] printk: make printk_safe_flush safe in NMI context by skipping flushing

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:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:55:20 +0900
From:   "Hoeun Ryu" <hoeun.ryu@....com>
To:     "'Petr Mladek'" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:     "'Hoeun Ryu'" <hoeun.ryu@....com.com>,
        "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        "'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH]  printk: make printk_safe_flush safe in NMI context by skipping flushing

I appreciate the detailed correction.
I will reflect the corrections in the next patch.
plus, the explanation in the code will be fixed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petr Mladek [mailto:pmladek@...e.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:32 PM
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
> Cc: Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@....com.com>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>;
> Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@....com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: make printk_safe_flush safe in NMI context by
> skipping flushing
> 
> On Tue 2018-05-29 21:13:15, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (05/29/18 11:51), Hoeun Ryu wrote:
> > >  Make printk_safe_flush() safe in NMI context.
> > > nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() can be called in NMI context. For
> example the
> > > function is called in watchdog_overflow_callback() if the flag of
> hardlockup
> > > backtrace (sysctl_hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace) is true and
> > > watchdog_overflow_callback() function is called in NMI context on some
> > > architectures.
> > >  Calling printk_safe_flush() in nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace()
> eventually tries
> > > to lock logbuf_lock in vprintk_emit() but the logbuf_lock can be
> already locked in
> > > preempted contexts (task or irq in this case) or by other CPUs and it
> may cause
> 
> The sentence "logbuf_lock can be already locked in preempted contexts"
> does not
> make much sense. It is a spin lock. It means that both interrupts and
> preemption are disabled.
> 
> I would change it to something like:
> 
> "Calling printk_safe_flush() in nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() eventually
> tries
> to lock logbuf_lock in vprintk_emit() that might be already be part
> of a soft- or hard-lockup on another CPU."
> 
> 
> > > deadlocks.
> > >  By making printk_safe_flush() safe in NMI context, the backtrace
> triggering CPU
> > > just skips flushing if the lock is not avaiable in NMI context. The
> messages in
> > > per-cpu nmi buffer of the backtrace triggering CPU can be lost if the
> CPU is in
> > > hard lockup (because irq is disabled here) but if panic() is not
> called. The
> > > flushing can be delayed by the next irq work in normal cases.
> 
> I somehow miss there a motivation why the current state is better than
> the previous. It looks like we exchange the risk of a deadlock with
> a risk of loosing the messages.
> 
> I see it the following way:
> 
> "This patch prevents a deadlock in printk_safe_flush() in NMI
> context. It makes sure that we continue and eventually call
> printk_safe_flush_on_panic() from panic() that has better
> chances to succeed.
> 
> There is a risk that logbuf_lock was not part of a soft- or
> dead-lockup and we might just loose the messages. But then there is a high
> chance that irq_work will get called and the messages will get flushed
> the normal way."
> 
> 
> > Any chance we can add more info to the commit message? E.g. backtraces
> > which would describe "how" is this possible (like the one I posted in
> > another email). Just to make it more clear.
> 
> I agree that a backtrace would be helpful. But it is not a must to
> have from my point of view.
> 
> The patch itself looks good to me.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr