linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v6.7

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: <ZUDUlQq6hEEPBiCR@lothringen>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 11:19:01 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Z qiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v6.7

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 06:12:51PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 01:33, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > rcu/stall: Stall detection updates. Introduce RCU CPU Stall notifiers
> >         that allows a subsystem to provide informations to help debugging.
> >         Also cure some false positive stalls.
> 
> I absolutely detest this stall notifier thing.
> 
> Putting the stall notifier before the stall message does not "help
> debugging". Quite the reverse. It ends up being a lovely way to make
> sure that the debug message is never printed, because there's some
> entirely untested - and thus buggy - notifier on the chain before the
> printout from the actual stall code.
> 
> I've pulled this, but I really want to voice my objection against
> these kinds of "debugging aids". I have personally spent way too many
> hours debugging a dead machine because some "debug aid" ended up being
> untested garbage.
> 
> If you absolutely think that this is a worthy and useful thing to do,
> then at the very least make sure that these "debug aids" will always
> come *after* the core output, and can't make things horrendously
> worse.
> 
> But in general, think twice before adding "maybe somebody else wants
> to print debug info". Because unless you have a really really REALLY
> good reason for it, it's more likely to hurt than to help.
> 
> Right now I see no users of this except for the rcu torture code, and
> it certainly doesn't seem hugely important there. And so I'm wondering
> what the actual real use-case would be.

I see, one possibility is to revert this and switch to normal calls
for any future debug information to add from another subsystem. I'll
wait for Paul's opinion...

Thanks.