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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906172307260.1963@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:08:54 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] watchdog/softlockup: Make softlockup reports more
 reliable and useful

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> we were analyzing logs with several softlockup reports in flush_tlb_kernel_range().
> They were confusing. Especially it was not clear whether it was deadlock,
> livelock, or separate softlockups.
> 
> It went out that even a simple busy loop:
> 
> 	while (true)
> 	      cpu_relax();
> 
> is able to produce several softlockups reports:
> 
> [  168.277520] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [cat:4865]
> [  196.277604] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [cat:4865]
> [  236.277522] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 23s! [cat:4865]
> 
> 
> I tried to understand the tricky watchdog code and produced two patches
> that would be helpful to debug the original real bug:
> 
>    1st patch prevents restart of the watchdog from unrelated locations.
> 
>    2nd patch helps to distinguish several possible situations by
>    regular reports.
> 
>    3rd patch can be used for testing the problem.
> 
> 
> The watchdog code might deserve even more clean up. Anyway, I would
> like to hear other's opinion first.

Anything which improves debugability is welcome. Unfortunately you missed
to add an example of the output after these patches are applied.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ