linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: force ignore

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: <f6e39c8f-2ca2-4a01-cf42-9ed3bc2462a8@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:58:46 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Cc:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: force ignore_loglevel before panic

On 2018/12/10 15:11, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (12/10/18 05:58), Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>>> On (12/10/18 05:40), Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>>>> @@ -130,6 +130,13 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t,
>>> unsigned long timeout)
>>>>                         init_utsname()->version);
>>>>                 pr_err("\"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs\""
>>>>                         " disables this message.\n");
>>>> +               /* When sysctl_hung_task_panic is set, we have to force
>>>> +                * ignore_loglevel to get really useful hung task
>>>> +                * information.
>>>> +                */
>>>> +               if (sysctl_hung_task_panic && !ignore_loglevel)
>>>> +                       ignore_loglevel = true;
>>>
>>> 		console_verbose()?
>>
>> Thanks Sergey, it is really my need. I will prepare for a new version of patch:)
> 
> Let's wait for people to take a look at this patch first.

Shouldn't console_verbose() be called like

-    if (!sysctl_hung_task_warnings && !sysctl_hung_task_panic)
+    if (sysctl_hung_task_panic)
+        console_verbose();
+    else if (!sysctl_hung_task_warnings)
         return;

or

-    if (!sysctl_hung_task_warnings && !sysctl_hung_task_panic)
-        return;
+    if (sysctl_hung_task_panic)
+        console_verbose();

or

-    if (!sysctl_hung_task_warnings && !sysctl_hung_task_panic)
-        return;
+    if (sysctl_hung_task_panic) {
+        console_verbose();
+        hung_task_show_lock = true;
+        hung_task_call_panic = true;
+    }
(...snipped...)
-    if (sysctl_hung_task_panic) {
-        hung_task_show_lock = true;
-        hung_task_call_panic = true;
-    }

so that sysctl_hung_task_warnings == 0 && sysctl_hung_task_panic == 1
will call debug_show_all_locks() and trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() with
verbose level?