linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] printk: disable optimistic spin during panic

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: <877dalpcvz.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:49:44 +0106
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] printk: disable optimistic spin during panic

On 2022-01-27, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> I mean that chance of dealock caused by the internal semaohore spin
> lock is super small. In compare, a lot of tricky code is guarded
> by console_sem. It looks like a big risk to ignore the semaphore
> early in panic().

Agreed.

> A better solution would be to use raw_spin_trylock_irqsave() in
> down_trylock().

down_trylock() is attempting to decrement a semaphore. It should not
fail just because another CPU is also in the process of
decrementing/incrementing the semaphore.

Maybe a down_trylock_cond() could be introduced where the trylock could
fail if a given condition is not met. The function would need to
implement its own internal trylock spin loop to check the condition. But
then we could pass in a condition for it to abort. For example, when in
panic and we are not the panic CPU.

John