linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI

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: <20201020122535.paym32gksuhcqtwq@holly.lan>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:25:35 +0100
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        ito-yuichi@...itsu.com, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:52:43PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 15:38, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-10-20 07:43, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 17:07, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> > +{
> > >> > +     if (!ipi_desc)
> > >> > +             return;
> > >> > +
> > >> > +     if (is_nmi) {
> > >> > +             if (!prepare_percpu_nmi(ipi_id))
> > >> > +                     enable_percpu_nmi(ipi_id, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> > >> > +     } else {
> > >> > +             enable_percpu_irq(ipi_id, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> > >>
> > >> I'm not keen on this. Normal IRQs can't reliably work, so why do you
> > >> even bother with this?
> > >
> > > Yeah I agree but we need to support existing functionality for kgdb
> > > roundup and sysrq backtrace using normal IRQs as well.
> >
> > When has this become a requirement? I don't really see the point in
> > implementing something that is known not to work.
> >
> 
> For kgdb:
> 
> Default implementation [1] uses smp_call_function_single_async() which
> in turn will invoke IPI as a normal IRQ to roundup CPUs.
> 
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/debug/debug_core.c#n244
> 
> For sysrq backtrace:
> 
> Default implementation [2] fallbacks to smp_call_function() (IPI as a
> normal IRQ) to print backtrace in case architecture doesn't provide
> arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() hook.
> 
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/tty/sysrq.c#n250
> 
> So in general, IPI as a normal IRQ is still useful for debugging but
> it can't debug a core which is stuck in deadlock with interrupts
> disabled.
> 
> And since we choose override default implementations for pseudo NMI
> support, we need to be backwards compatible for platforms which don't
> possess pseudo NMI support.

Do the fallback implementations require a new IPI? The fallbacks
could rely on existing mechanisms such as the smp_call_function
family.


Daniel.