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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:46:03 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "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 Tue 2018-12-11 01:16:10, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > From: Tetsuo Handa [mailto:penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp]
> > 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

> > -    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;
> > -    }
> Thanks Tetsuo, I prefer this option, which makes code more readable.

I like this variant as well. Also using console_verbose() looks
like a better choice.


> More thoughts in this condition of sysctl_hung_task_warnings == 0 && sysctl_hung_task_panic == 1,
> in this case, debug_show_all_locks() may not output useful information if LOCK DEBUG config is not enabled.
> trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() will not show the hung task for debugging either.
> 
> We may enhance it by:
> -       if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings) {
> +       if (sysctl_hung_task_panic || sysctl_hung_task_warnings) {
>                 if (sysctl_hung_task_warnings > 0)
>                         sysctl_hung_task_warnings--;

I agree with Tetsuo that we should not touch this.

The warnings will get typically printed because panic() will get
triggered on the first occasion. And we should respect when the admin
disables the warnings completely.

Best Regards,
Petr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ