linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] nmi_backtrace: Allow excluding an arbitrary CPU

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:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:56:51 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] nmi_backtrace: Allow excluding an arbitrary CPU

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 12:50 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 03-08-23 16:07:57, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > The APIs that allow backtracing across CPUs have always had a way to
> > exclude the current CPU. This convenience means callers didn't need to
> > find a place to allocate a CPU mask just to handle the common case.
> >
> > Let's extend the API to take a CPU ID to exclude instead of just a
> > boolean. This isn't any more complex for the API to handle and allows
> > the hardlockup detector to exclude a different CPU (the one it already
> > did a trace for) without needing to find space for a CPU mask.
> >
> > Arguably, this new API also encourages safer behavior. Specifically if
> > the caller wants to avoid tracing the current CPU (maybe because they
> > already traced the current CPU) this makes it more obvious to the
> > caller that they need to make sure that the current CPU ID can't
> > change.
>
> Yes, this looks like the best way forward.
>
> It would have been slightly safer to modify arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace
> by switching arguments so that some leftovers are captured easier.

I'm not sure I understand. Oh, you're saying make the prototype of
arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() incompatible so that if someone is
directly calling it then it'll be a compile-time error? I guess the
hope is that nobody is calling that directly and they're calling
through the trigger_...() functions.

For now I'm going to leave this alone.


> You also have this leftover
> diff --git a/include/linux/nmi.h b/include/linux/nmi.h
> index 00982b133dc1..9f1743ee2b28 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nmi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nmi.h
> @@ -190,10 +190,6 @@ static inline bool trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
>  {
>         return false;
>  }
> -static inline bool trigger_allbutself_cpu_backtrace(void)
> -{
> -       return false;
> -}

Ah yes. I missed that case. Let me send a quick v4.


>  static inline bool trigger_cpumask_backtrace(struct cpumask *mask)
>  {
>         return false;
>
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
> Anyway
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Thanks!