linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH printk-rework 09/12] um: synchronize kmsg

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: <790609565.351317.1612212004428.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 21:40:04 +0100 (CET)
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk-rework 09/12] um: synchronize kmsg_dumper

John,

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>> The line was previously synchronized for the kmsg_dump_get_line()
>>> call. But yes, it was not synchronized after the call, which is a bug if
>>> the dump is triggered on multiple CPUs simultaneously. The commit
>>> message should also mention that it is handling that bug.
>>> 
>>>> IMHO, this patch is not needed.
>>> 
>>> I am not familiar enough with ARCH=um to know if dumps can be triggered
>>> on multiple CPUs simultaneously. Perhaps ThomasM or Richard can chime in
>>> here.
>>
>> Well, uml has no SMP support, so no parallel dumps. :-)
> 
> When I grep through arch/um, I see many uses of spinlocks. This would
> imply that uml at least has some sort of preemption model where they are
> needed. Dumps can trigger from any context and from multiple paths.
> 
> If you are sure that this is no concern, then I will drop this patch
> from my series.

Currently uml selects ARCH_NO_PREEMPT, so no preemtion too.
We have spinlocks at obvious places in arch/um/ just to be ready if uml supports
SMP at some point.
Does your patch have drawbacks right now for uml? If not, I'd suggest to keep it.

Thanks,
//richard