linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 8e274732115f ("printk: extend console

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: <YqcY+NonkxDkZyVV@alley>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:01:12 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 8e274732115f ("printk: extend console_lock for per-console
 locking")

On Sun 2022-06-12 18:09:10, John Ogness wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for looking into this! I am currently on vacation with family, so
> my responses are limited. Some initial comments from me below...
> 
> On 2022-06-12, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > And the patch below takes care of things in (admittedly quite light)
> > testing thus far.  What it does is add ten seconds of pure delay
> > before rcutorture shuts down the system.  Presumably, this delay gives
> > printk() the time that it needs to flush its buffers.  In the
> > configurations that I have tested thus far, anyway.
> >
> > So what should I be doing instead?
> >
> > o	console_flush_on_panic() seems like strong medicine, but might
> > 	be the right thing to do.  The bit about proceeding even though
> > 	it failed to acquire the lock doesn't look good for non-panic
> >       use.
> 
> For sure not this one.
> 
> > o	printk_trigger_flush() has an attractive name, but it looks
> > 	like it only just starts the flush rather than waiting for it
> > 	to finish.
> 
> Correct. It just triggers.
> 
> > o	pr_flush(1000, true) looks quite interesting, and also seems to
> > 	work in a few quick tests, so I will continue playing with that.
> 
> This is only useful if the context is guaranteed may_sleep().
> 
> What is _supposed_ to happen is that @system_state increases above
> SYSTEM_RUNNING, which then causes direct printing to be used. So the
> pr_emerg("Power down\n") in kernel_power_off() would directly flush all
> remaining messages.
> 
> But if the threaded printers are already in the process of printing,
> they block direct printing. That may be what we are seeing here.
> 
> What I find particularly interesting is that it is not the kthread-patch
> that is causing the issue.

Yes, it is interesting :-)

I think that it is because the initial kthreads allowed to handover
console_lock() to another caller. It was removed when kthreads
started using the new con->lock mutex.

This might also be the reason why the extra
console_lock()/console_unlock() helped.

Best Regards,
Petr