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]
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 23:52:41 -0800
From:   Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <johannes@...solutions.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <rafael@...nel.org>, <robdclark@...il.com>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        <swboyd@...omium.org>, <nganji@...eaurora.org>,
        <aravindh@...eaurora.org>, <khsieh@...eaurora.org>,
        <daniel@...ll.ch>, <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcoredump: increase the device delete timeout to 10
 mins

Hi Greg

On 2/11/2022 11:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:59:39AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Greg
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> On 2/11/2022 3:09 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:44:32AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>>> There are cases where depending on the size of the devcoredump and the speed
>>>> at which the usermode reads the dump, it can take longer than the current 5 mins
>>>> timeout.
>>>>
>>>> This can lead to incomplete dumps as the device is deleted once the timeout expires.
>>>>
>>>> One example is below where it took 6 mins for the devcoredump to be completely read.
>>>>
>>>> 04:22:24.668 23916 23994 I HWDeviceDRM::DumpDebugData: Opening /sys/class/devcoredump/devcd6/data
>>>> 04:28:35.377 23916 23994 W HWDeviceDRM::DumpDebugData: Freeing devcoredump node
>>>
>>> What makes this so slow?  Reading from the kernel shouldn't be the
>>> limit, is it where the data is being sent to?
>>
>> We are still checking this. We are seeing better read times when we bump up
>> the thread priority of the thread which was reading this.
> 
> Where is the thread sending the data to?

The thread is writing the data to a file in local storage. From our 
profiling, the read is the one taking the time not the write.

> 
>> We are also trying to check if bumping up CPU speed is helping.
>> But, results have not been consistently good enough. So we thought we should
>> also increase the timeout to be safe.
> 
> Why would 10 minutes be better than 30?  What should the limit be?  :)

Again, this is from our profiling. We are seeing a worst case time of 7 
mins to finish the read for our data. Thats where the 10mins came from. 
Just doubling what we have currently. I am not sure how the current 5 
mins timeout came from.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ