linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] arm64: kgdb: Roundup cpus using the debug IPI

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: <ZNEV_mz4VU1HyBc9@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:04:14 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, ito-yuichi@...itsu.com,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] arm64: kgdb: Roundup cpus using the debug IPI

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:28:52AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:31:51PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > Let's use the debug IPI for rounding up CPUs in kgdb. When the debug
> > > IPI is backed by an NMI (or pseudo NMI) then this will let us debug
> > > even hard locked CPUs. When the debug IPI isn't backed by an NMI then
> > > this won't really have any huge benefit but it will still work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v9:
> > > - Remove fallback for when debug IPI isn't available.
> > > - Renamed "NMI IPI" to "debug IPI" since it might not be backed by NMI.
> > >
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/ipi_debug.c |  5 +++++
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c      | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >
> > This looks fine to me, but I'd feel a bit happier if we had separate SGIs for
> > the backtrace and the KGDB callback as they're logically unrelated.
> 
> I've no objections to seperate SGIs (if one can be found) but I'm curious
> what benefit emerges from giving them seperate IPIs.

Mostly an "I'd feel happier"; they're logically unrelated and having them
separate avoids the risk of them unintentionally getting in the way of the
other.

> Both interfaces are already designed to share and NMI-like IPI nicely
> (and IIUC they must share one on x86), neither is performance
> critical[1] and the content of /proc/interrupts for the IPI is seldom
> going to be of much interest.

Sure; I understand that. The flip side of "neither is performance critical" is
that they're seldom tested in terms of interaction with one another, and hence
for robustness I'd prefer they're separate.

I agree it's not strictly necessary, but given we can easily free up an SGI
slot, I think it'd be worthwhile. We can always decide to fold them together in
future if we have to.

I realise a similar argument could be applied to IPI_WAKEUP and IPI_RESCHEDULE,
but given that IPI_RESCHEDULE happens *all the time* and the wakeup handler
does literally nothing, I think the risk there is substantially lower.

Thanks,
Mark.

> As mentioned it is perfectly OK to separate them if there is space in
> the SGI allocations. However if any two functions are good candidates to
> share a scarce resource such as an SGI then it is these!
> 
> 
> Daniel.
> 
> 
> [1] In both cases their results are only required at human-scale
>     and the work of the both handlers is hugely more expensive than
>     either up front quick-check.