linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections

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:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:46:01 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
        regressions@...mhuis.info, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Derek Dolney <z23@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING
 sections

[CCing boris]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.

On 25.07.22 11:59, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> The DYING/STARTING callbacks are not expected to fail. However, as reported
> by Derek, drivers such as tboot are still free to return errors within
> those sections, which halts the hot(un)plug and leaves the CPU in an
> unrecoverable state.
> 
> No rollback being possible there, let's only log the failures and proceed
> with the following steps. This restores the hotplug behaviour prior to
> commit 453e41085183 ("cpu/hotplug: Add cpuhp_invoke_callback_range()")
> 
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215867
> Fixes: 453e41085183 ("cpu/hotplug: Add cpuhp_invoke_callback_range()")
> Reported-by: Derek Dolney <z23@...teo.net>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
> Tested-by: Derek Dolney <z23@...teo.net>

What's the status here? Did that patch to fixing a regression fall
through the cracks? It looks like nothing happened for 3 weeks now,
that's why I wondered, but maybe I missed something.

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.


> v4 -> v5:
>    - Remove WARN, only log broken states with pr_warn.
> v3 -> v4:
>    - Sorry ... wrong commit description style ...
> v2 -> v3:
>    - Tested-by tag.
>    - Refine commit description.
>    - Bugzilla link.
> v1 -> v2:
>    - Commit message rewording.
>    - More details in the warnings.
>    - Some variable renaming
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index bbad5e375d3b..621e5af42d57 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -663,21 +663,51 @@ static bool cpuhp_next_state(bool bringup,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -static int cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bool bringup,
> -				       unsigned int cpu,
> -				       struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> -				       enum cpuhp_state target)
> +static int __cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bool bringup,
> +					 unsigned int cpu,
> +					 struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> +					 enum cpuhp_state target,
> +					 bool nofail)
>  {
>  	enum cpuhp_state state;
> -	int err = 0;
> +	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	while (cpuhp_next_state(bringup, &state, st, target)) {
> +		int err;
> +
>  		err = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, state, bringup, NULL, NULL);
> -		if (err)
> +		if (!err)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (nofail) {
> +			pr_warn("CPU %u %s state %s (%d) failed (%d)\n",
> +				cpu, bringup ? "UP" : "DOWN",
> +				cpuhp_get_step(st->state)->name,
> +				st->state, err);
> +			ret = -1;
> +		} else {
> +			ret = err;
>  			break;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	return err;
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bool bringup,
> +					      unsigned int cpu,
> +					      struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> +					      enum cpuhp_state target)
> +{
> +	return __cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bringup, cpu, st, target, false);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void cpuhp_invoke_callback_range_nofail(bool bringup,
> +						      unsigned int cpu,
> +						      struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> +						      enum cpuhp_state target)
> +{
> +	__cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bringup, cpu, st, target, true);
>  }
>  
>  static inline bool can_rollback_cpu(struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st)
> @@ -999,7 +1029,6 @@ static int take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>  	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = this_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state);
>  	enum cpuhp_state target = max((int)st->target, CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE);
>  	int err, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -	int ret;
>  
>  	/* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
>  	err = __cpu_disable();
> @@ -1012,13 +1041,11 @@ static int take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>  	 */
>  	WARN_ON(st->state != (CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU - 1));
>  
> -	/* Invoke the former CPU_DYING callbacks */
> -	ret = cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(false, cpu, st, target);
> -
>  	/*
> +	 * Invoke the former CPU_DYING callbacks
>  	 * DYING must not fail!
>  	 */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> +	cpuhp_invoke_callback_range_nofail(false, cpu, st, target);
>  
>  	/* Give up timekeeping duties */
>  	tick_handover_do_timer();
> @@ -1296,16 +1323,14 @@ void notify_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu);
>  	enum cpuhp_state target = min((int)st->target, CPUHP_AP_ONLINE);
> -	int ret;
>  
>  	rcu_cpu_starting(cpu);	/* Enables RCU usage on this CPU. */
>  	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpus_booted_once_mask);
> -	ret = cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(true, cpu, st, target);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * STARTING must not fail!
>  	 */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> +	cpuhp_invoke_callback_range_nofail(true, cpu, st, target);
>  }
>  
>  /*