linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RFC: x86/smp: use printk_deferred in native_smp_send

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: <20190508075302.GC15704@jagdpanzerIV>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 16:53:02 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: x86/smp: use printk_deferred in
 native_smp_send_reschedule

On (05/08/19 16:44), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> >  static void native_smp_send_reschedule(int cpu)
> >  {
> >  	if (unlikely(cpu_is_offline(cpu))) {
> > -		WARN(1, "sched: Unexpected reschedule of offline CPU#%d!\n", cpu);
> > +		printk_deferred(KERN_WARNING
> > +				"sched: Unexpected reschedule of offline CPU#%d!\n", cpu);
> >  		return;
> >  	}
> >  	apic->send_IPI(cpu, RESCHEDULE_VECTOR);
> 
> Hmm,
> One thing to notice here is that the CPU in question is offline-ed,
> and printk_deferred() is a per-CPU type of deferred printk(). So the
> following thing
> 
> 	__this_cpu_or(printk_pending, PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT);
> 	irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));
> 
> might not print anything at all. In this particular case we always
> need another CPU to do console_unlock(), since this_cpu() is not
> really expected to do wake_up_klogd_work_func()->console_unlock().

D'oh... It's remote CPU which is offline, not this_cpu().
Sorry, my bad!

Any printk-related patch in this area will make PeterZ really-really
angry :)

printk_deferred(), just like prinkt_safe(), depends on IRQ work;
printk_safe(), however, can redirect multiple lines, unlike
printk_deferred(). So if you want to keep the backtrace, you may
do something like

	if (unlikely(cpu_is_offline(cpu))) {
		printk_safe_enter(...);
		WARN(1, "sched: Unexpected reschedule of offline CPU#%d!\n",
			 cpu);
		printk_safe_exit(...);
		return;
	}

I think, in this case John's reworked-printk can do better than
printk_safe/printk_deferred.

	-ss