linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH printk v1 03/10] kgdb: delay roundup if holding printk cpulock

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: <20210803142558.cz7apumpgijs5y4y@maple.lan>
Date:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:25:58 +0100
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Chengyang Fan <cy.fan@...wei.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 03/10] kgdb: delay roundup if holding printk
 cpulock

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:18:54PM +0206, John Ogness wrote:
> kgdb makes use of its own cpulock (@dbg_master_lock, @kgdb_active)
> during cpu roundup. This will conflict with the printk cpulock.

When the full vision is realized what will be the purpose of the printk
cpulock?

I'm asking largely because it's current role is actively unhelpful
w.r.t. kdb. It is possible that cautious use of in_dbg_master() might
be a better (and safer) solution. However it sounds like there is a
larger role planned for the printk cpulock...


> Therefore, a CPU must ensure that it is not holding the printk
> cpulock when calling kgdb_cpu_enter(). If it is, it must allow its
> printk context to complete first.
> 
> A new helper function kgdb_roundup_delay() is introduced for kgdb
> to determine if it is holding the printk cpulock. If so, a flag is
> set so that when the printk cpulock is released, kgdb will be
> re-triggered for that CPU.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/smp.h |  1 +
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/kgdb.c     | 10 +++++++-
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c      |  5 ++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c         |  9 ++++---
>  include/linux/kgdb.h           |  3 +++
>  include/linux/printk.h         |  8 ++++++
>  kernel/debug/debug_core.c      | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  kernel/printk/printk.c         | 12 +++++++++
>  8 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> [...]
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 3d0c933937b4..1b546e117f10 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>  #include <linux/irq_work.h>
>  #include <linux/ctype.h>
>  #include <linux/uio.h>
> +#include <linux/kgdb.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
> @@ -214,6 +215,7 @@ int devkmsg_sysctl_set_loglvl(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  static atomic_t printk_cpulock_owner = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
>  static atomic_t printk_cpulock_nested = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> +static unsigned int kgdb_cpu = -1;

Is this the flag to provoke retriggering? It appears to be a write-only
variable (at least in this patch). How is it consumed?


Daniel.


>  /**
>   * __printk_wait_on_cpu_lock() - Busy wait until the printk cpu-reentrant
> @@ -325,6 +327,16 @@ void __printk_cpu_unlock(void)
>  			   -1); /* LMM(__printk_cpu_unlock:B) */
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__printk_cpu_unlock);
> +
> +bool kgdb_roundup_delay(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (cpu != atomic_read(&printk_cpulock_owner))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	kgdb_cpu = cpu;
> +	return true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kgdb_roundup_delay);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>  
>  /* Number of registered extended console drivers. */
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>