linux-kernel - Re: locking API: was: [PATCH printk v1 00/18] serial: 8250: implement non-BKL 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: <87a5zxger3.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:03:36 +0206
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        tangmeng <tangmeng@...ontech.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: locking API: was: [PATCH printk v1 00/18] serial: 8250:
 implement non-BKL console

On 2023-03-28, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>> +	if (!__serial8250_clear_IER(up, wctxt, &ier))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	if (console_exit_unsafe(wctxt)) {
>> +		can_print = atomic_print_line(up, wctxt);
>> +		if (!can_print)
>> +			atomic_console_reacquire(wctxt, &wctxt_init);
>
> I am trying to review the 9th patch adding console_can_proceed(),
> console_enter_unsafe(), console_exit_unsafe() API. And I wanted
> to see how the struct cons_write_context was actually used.

First off, I need to post the latest version of the 8250-POC patch. It
is not officially part of this series and is still going through changes
for the PREEMPT_RT tree. I will post the latest version directly after
answering this email.

> I am confused now. I do not understand the motivation for the extra
> @wctxt_init copy and atomic_console_reacquire().

If an atomic context loses ownership while doing certain activities, it
may need to re-acquire ownership in order to finish or cleanup what it
started.

> Why do we need a copy?

When ownership is lost, the context is cleared. In order to re-acquire,
an original copy of the context is needed. There is no technical reason
to clear the context, so maybe the context should not be cleared after a
takeover. Otherwise, many drivers will need to implement the "backup
copy" solution.

> And why we need to reacquire it?

In this particular case the context has disabled interrupts. No other
context will re-enable interrupts because the driver is implemented such
that the one who disables is the one who enables. So this context must
re-acquire ownership in order to re-enable interrupts.

> My feeling is that it is needed only to call
> console_exit_unsafe(wctxt) later. Or do I miss anything?

No. It is only about re-enabling interrupts. The concept of unsafe is
not really relevant if a hostile takeover during unsafe occurs. In that
case it becomes a "hope and pray" effort at the end of panic().

John