linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/17] irq: remove handle_domain

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: <YntynKK5Jjw2Q1rX@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 09:23:56 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, maz@...nel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        catalin.marinas@....com, deanbo422@...il.com, green.hu@...il.com,
        guoren@...nel.org, jonas@...thpole.se, kernelfans@...il.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        nickhu@...estech.com, palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        shorne@...il.com, stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi,
        tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vgupta@...nel.org,
        vladimir.murzin@....com, will@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/17] irq: remove handle_domain_{irq,nmi}()

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:52:29AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, May 10 2022 at 15:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:13:20PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >> For gpio-dln2.c, I believe it from inspection.
> >> 
> >> For smsc95xx.c, I'm actually seeing it go wrong in practice,
> >> unedited dmesg splat is included below FWIW.
> >
> > Thanks; having the trace makes this much easier to analyse.
> 
> which confirmes what I talked about before:
> 
> >> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 75 at kernel/irq/irqdesc.c:702 generic_handle_domain_irq+0x88/0x94
> >>  generic_handle_domain_irq from smsc95xx_status+0x54/0xb0
> >>  smsc95xx_status from intr_complete+0x80/0x84
> >>  intr_complete from __usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0xa4/0x12c
> >>  __usb_hcd_giveback_urb from usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0x118/0x11c
> >>  usb_hcd_giveback_urb from completion_tasklet_func+0x7c/0xc8
> >>  completion_tasklet_func from tasklet_callback+0x20/0x24
> >>  tasklet_callback from tasklet_action_common.constprop.0+0x148/0x220
> >>  tasklet_action_common.constprop.0 from tasklet_hi_action+0x28/0x30
> >>  tasklet_hi_action from __do_softirq+0x154/0x3e8
> >>  __do_softirq from __local_bh_enable_ip+0x12c/0x1a8
> >>  __local_bh_enable_ip from irq_forced_thread_fn+0x7c/0xac
> >>  irq_forced_thread_fn from irq_thread+0x16c/0x228
> >>  irq_thread from kthread+0x100/0x140
> 
> So what happens here:
> 
>  interrupt
>     -> wakeup threaded handler
> 
>  threaded handler runs
>     local_bh_disable();
>     ....
>     schedules tasklet
>     ...
>     local_bh_enable()
>       do_softirq()
>         run_tasklet()
>           urb_completion()
>             smsc95xx_status()
>               generic_handle_domain_irq()
> 
> That interrupt in question is an interrupt, which is not handled by the
> primary CPU interrupt chips. It's a synthetic interrupt which is
> generated from the received USB packet.
> 
> +	/* USB interrupts are received in softirq (tasklet) context.
> +	 * Switch to hardirq context to make genirq code happy.
> +	 */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	__irq_enter_raw();
> +
>  	if (intdata & INT_ENP_PHY_INT_)
> -		;
> +		generic_handle_domain_irq(pdata->irqdomain, PHY_HWIRQ);
> 
> This __irq_enter_raw() is really wrong. This is _not_ running in hard
> interrupt context. Pretending so creates more problems than it
> solves. It breaks context tracking, confuses lockdep ...
> 
> We also have demultiplexed interrupts which are nested in a threaded
> interrupt handler and share the thread context. No, we are not going to
> pretend that they run in hard interrupt context either.
> 
> So we need a clear distinction between interrupts which really happen in
> hard interrupt context and those which are synthetic and can be invoked
> from pretty much any context.
> 
> Anything else is just a recipe for disaster and endless supply of half
> baken hacks.

Agreed. IIUC everyone agrees the __irq_enter_raw() usage is a hack, but what's
not clear is what we *should* do -- sorry if I'm being thick here.

I suspect that given we have generic_handle_irq_safe() for situations like this
we should add a generic_handle_domain_irq_safe(), and use that in this driver?
That way we can keep the `WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_hardirq())` in
generic_handle_domain_irq().

... or do you think we should do something else entirely?

Thanks,
Mark.