Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:10:18 +0106
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, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Ilpo
 Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Shevchenko
 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, Justin Chen
 <justin.chen@...adcom.com>, Jiaqing Zhao <jiaqing.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2 08/26] printk: nbcon: Implement processing in
 port->lock wrapper

On 2024-03-14, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> Well, it brings another question. Does this allow to have
> the following situation?
>
> CPU0				CPU1
>
>   some_function()
>     uart_port_lock()
>       // locked just with up->lock
>       // doing something with the port
>
> 				register_console()
> 				  // add struct console using the same
> 				  // port as CPU0
> 				  printk()
> 				    console_try_lock()
> 				    console_unlock()
> 				      console_flush_all()
> 					// acquire context for the newly
> 					// registered nbcon
> 					nbcon_context_try_acquire(ctxt)
> 					  con->write()
>
> BANG: Both CPU0 and CPU1 are writing to the same port.
>
> Reason: CPU0 locked only via port->lock.
> 	CPU1 locked only by acquiring nbcon context.

Great catch! Yes, this is possible. :-/

When the kthread series part is introduced, there will be additional
callbacks that nbcon consoles must implement
(driver_enter()/driver_exit()). These provide driver-level
synchronization. In the case of serial uarts, the callbacks map to
locking/unlocking the port lock.

If I were to introduce those callbacks in _this_ series, they can be
used when adding a console to the list in register_console(). This
changes your example to:

CPU0				CPU1

  some_function()
    uart_port_lock()
      // locked just with up->lock
      // doing something with the port

				register_console()
				  // add struct console using the same
				  // port as CPU0
				  newcon->driver_enter()
				    spin_lock(port_lock)
				    // spin on CPU0
    uart_port_unlock()
				  // add new console to console list
				  newcon->driver_exit()
				    spin_unlock(port_lock)
				  ...

If any other CPUs come in and call uart_port_lock(), they will see the
console as registered and will acquire the nbcon to avoid the BANG.

> Maybe, this is not possible because the console is registered when
> the struct uart_port is being initialized and nobody could
> use the same port in parallel, except for the early console.
> Where the early console is serialized using the console_lock().

Yes, it is possible. Just check out:

    find /sys/ -name console -type f

If you echo 'Y' or 'N' into any of those files, you can dynamically
register and unregister those consoles, respectively.

I just ran some tests to verify this and was even able to trigger a
mainline bug because probe_baud() of the 8250 driver is not called under
the port lock. This is essentially the same scenario you
illustrated. But the 8250 probe_baud() issue is a driver bug and not
related to this series.

Getting back to this series, my proposal would change register_console()
like this:

diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 68657d4d6649..25a0a81e8397 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -3733,6 +3733,7 @@ void register_console(struct console *newcon)
 	struct console *con;
 	bool bootcon_registered = false;
 	bool realcon_registered = false;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int err;
 
 	console_list_lock();
@@ -3831,6 +3832,19 @@ void register_console(struct console *newcon)
 	if (newcon->flags & CON_BOOT)
 		have_boot_console = true;
 
+	/*
+	 * If another context is actively using the hardware of this new
+	 * console, it will not be aware of the nbcon synchronization. This
+	 * is a risk that two contexts could access the hardware
+	 * simultaneously if this new console is used for atomic printing
+	 * and the other context is still using the hardware.
+	 * 
+	 * Use the driver synchronization to ensure that the hardware is not
+	 * in use while this new console transitions to being registered.
+	 */
+	if ((newcon->flags & CON_NBCON) && newcon->write_atomic)
+		newcon->driver_enter(newcon, &flags);
+
 	/*
 	 * Put this console in the list - keep the
 	 * preferred driver at the head of the list.
@@ -3855,6 +3869,10 @@ void register_console(struct console *newcon)
 	 * register_console() completes.
 	 */
 
+	/* This new console is now registered. */
+	if ((newcon->flags & CON_NBCON) && newcon->write_atomic)
+		newcon->driver_exit(newcon, flags);
+
 	console_sysfs_notify();
 
 	/*

> One solution would be to add nbcon consoles into the console_list
> under uart_port_lock().

This is what I have proposed and I think it is the most straight forward
solution.

> Another solution would be to make sure that any code serialized
> by uart_port_lock() will be already synchronized by nbcon context
> while the nbcon is added into the console_list.

I do not think this would be acceptable. It would mean that non-console
ports would need to lock the nbcon. Not only will that slow down the
non-console ports, but it will also cause serious contention between the
ports. (Remember, all the ports share the same struct console.)

> Maybe, we could do this in con->setup() callback. Something like:

This proposal would work, but IMHO it adds too much complexity by
requiring console drivers to implement the callbacks and do special
things in those callbacks.

>> The various fields have the following meaning (AFAICT):
>> 
>> port->line: An identifier to represent a particular port supported by a
>> driver.
>> 
>> port->cons: The struct console to use if this port is chosen to be a
>> console.
>> 
>> port->console: Boolean, true if this port was chosen to be a
>> console. (Used only by the tty layer.)
>> 
>> cons->index: The port chosen by printk to be a console.
>> 
> This is a great description. It would be great to have it somewhere in
> the sources. Maybe, above the locking/acquire functions.

OK.

John

Powered by blists - more mailing lists