linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH printk-rework 08/14] printk: add syslog

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: <b8ddd9e3-896f-cd9a-a340-0a7e139fee2e@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:22:22 +0100
From:   Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk-rework 08/14] printk: add syslog_lock

On 2/22/21 5:28 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-02-21 22:39:42, Helge Deller wrote:
>> On 2/19/21 5:33 PM, John Ogness wrote:
>>> Added CC: linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
>>>
>>> On 2021-02-19, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>>>>>> index 20c21a25143d..401df370832b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>>>>>> +/* Return a consistent copy of @syslog_seq. */
>>>>>> +static u64 read_syslog_seq_irq(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	u64 seq;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	raw_spin_lock_irq(&syslog_lock);
>>>>>> +	seq = syslog_seq;
>>>>>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&syslog_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any particular reason to disable interrupts here?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would make sense only when the lock could be taken in IRQ
>>>>> context. Then we would need to always disable interrupts when
>>>>> the lock is taken. And if it is taken in IRQ context, we would
>>>>> need to safe flags.
>>>>
>>>> All other instances of locking @syslog_lock are done with interrupts
>>>> disabled. And we have:
>>>>
>>>> register_console()
>>>>     logbuf_lock_irqsave()
>>>>       raw_spin_lock(&syslog_lock)
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I need to go through all the console drivers to see if any
>>>> register in interrupt context. If not, that logbuf_lock_irqsave()
>>>> should be replaced with logbuf_lock_irq(). And then locking
>>>> @syslog_lock will not need to disable interrupts.
>>>
>>> I found a possible call chain in interrupt context. From arch/parisc
>>> there is the interrupt handler:
>>>
>>> handle_interruption(code=1) /* High-priority machine check (HPMC) */
>>>     pdc_console_restart()
>>>       pdc_console_init_force()
>>>         register_console()
>>>
>>> All other register_console() calls in the kernel are either during init
>>> (within __init sections and probe functions) or are clearly not in
>>> interrupt context (using mutex, kzalloc, spin_lock_irq, etc).
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with parisc, but I am assuming handle_interruption()
>>> is always called with interrupts disabled (unless the HPMC interrupt is
>>> somehow an exception).
>>
>> Yes, handle_interruption() is the irq handler, running with irqs off.
>> HPMC is the crash handler - it's called when the kernel will stop
>> anyway. pdc_console is a very basic firmware console which prints
>> the last messages before the machine halts on fatal errors.
>> So, this code it's not the typical use case....
>
> Thanks for information.
>
> Is this code supposed to work only during early boot or anytime,
> please?

No.
It's only called when the kernel completely crashes, when all
spinlocks should get busted and so on.
It's the emergency way to get some info out at least.

> Note that it is not safe because register_console() takes
> console_lock() which is a sleeping lock.

As I said, in that stage the plan is to bust all spinlocks.

> That said, we are going to rework the console handling a lot. We are
> trying to remove as many locks from the printk path as possible.

That's good!

> I guess that the list of consoles will be synchronized using
> rcu at the end. But it is still a long way to go.

I'd say, that you simply should ignore this specific case here.
I'm happy to change anything there, so if you get rid of printk locks
it will benefit here too.

Helge