linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -printk] printk, tracing: fix console tracepoint

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: <20220712093940.45012e47@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:39:40 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -printk] printk, tracing: fix console tracepoint

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:49:54 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:

> > But a quick fix that stopped the bleeding and allowed printk() to
> > progress would be useful in the short term, regardless of whether or
> > not in the longer term it makes sense to make srcu_read_lock_trace()
> > and srcu_read_unlock_trace() NMI-safe.  
> 
> Except that doesn't rcuidle && in_nmi() imply a misplaced trace event?
> 
> Isn't it still the case that you are not supposed to have trace events
> in NMI handlers before RCU is watching or after it is no longer watching,
> just as for entry/exit code in general?  Once in the body of the handler,
> rcuidle should be false and all should be well.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?

I guess the question is, can we have printk() in such a place? Because this
tracepoint is attached to printk and where ever printk is done so is this
tracepoint.

-- Steve