linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] cgroup: rstat: add WARN_ON

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: <CAJD7tkYEOVRcXs-Ag3mWn69EwE4rjFt9j5MAcTGCNE8BuhTd+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:53:38 -0700
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] cgroup: rstat: add WARN_ON_ONCE() if flushing
 outside task context

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:39 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 30-03-23 01:19:29, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:15 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu 30-03-23 01:06:26, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > If we achieve that, do you think it makes sense to add
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled()) instead to prevent future users from
> > > > flushing while disabling irqs or in irq context?
> > >
> > > WARN_ON (similar to BUG_ON) will not prevent anybody from doing bad
> > > things. We already have means to shout about sleepable code being
> > > invoked from an atomic context and there is no reason to duplicate that.
> > > As I've said earlier WARN_ON might panic the system in some
> > > configurations (and yes they are used also in production systems - do
> > > not ask me why...). So please be careful about that and use that only
> > > when something really bad (yet recoverable) is going on.
> >
> > Thanks for the information (I was about to ask why about production
> > systems, but okay..). I will avoid WARN_ON completely. For the
> > purposes of this series I will drop this patch anyway.
>
> Thanks! People do strange things sometimes...
>
> > Any idea how to shout about "hey this may take too long, why are you
> > doing it with irqs disabled?!"?
>
> Well we have a hard lockup detector. It hits at a much higher stall by
> default but if you care about IRQ latencies in general then you likely
> want to lower. Another thing would be IRQ tracing. In any case this code
> path shouldn't be any special. Sure it can take long on large systems
> but I bet there are more of those.

We did see hard lockups in extreme cases, and we do have setups with
"nmi_watchdog=panic" that will panic when this happens, so we would
rather catch the code paths that can lead to that before it actually
happens.

Maybe we can add a primitive like might_sleep() for this, just food for thought.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs