netdev - Re: [PATCH 05/30] misc/pvpanic: Convert regular spinlock into trylock on panic path

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:   Tue, 17 May 2022 12:58:15 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bhe@...hat.com,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
        kernel-dev@...lia.com, kernel@...ccoli.net, halves@...onical.com,
        fabiomirmar@...il.com, alejandro.j.jimenez@...cle.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de,
        corbet@....net, d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dyoung@...hat.com,
        feng.tang@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        mikelley@...rosoft.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com,
        jgross@...e.com, john.ogness@...utronix.de, keescook@...omium.org,
        luto@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        senozhatsky@...omium.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vgoyal@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>,
        Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Wang ShaoBo <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>,
        zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/30] misc/pvpanic: Convert regular spinlock into
 trylock on panic path

On Tue 2022-05-10 10:00:58, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 10/05/2022 09:14, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > [...]
> >> With that said, it's dangerous to use regular spinlocks in such path,
> >> as introduced by commit b3c0f8774668 ("misc/pvpanic: probe multiple instances").
> >> This patch fixes that by replacing regular spinlocks with the trylock
> >> safer approach.
> > 
> > It seems that the lock is used just to manipulating a list. A super
> > safe solution would be to use the rcu API: rcu_add_rcu() and
> > list_del_rcu() under rcu_read_lock(). The spin lock will not be
> > needed and the list will always be valid.
> > 
> > The advantage would be that it will always call members that
> > were successfully added earlier. That said, I am not familiar
> > with pvpanic and am not sure if it is worth it.
> > 
> >> It also fixes an old comment (about a long gone framebuffer code) and
> >> the notifier priority - we should execute hypervisor notifiers early,
> >> deferring this way the panic action to the hypervisor, as expected by
> >> the users that are setting up pvpanic.
> > 
> > This should be done in a separate patch. It changes the behavior.
> > Also there might be a discussion whether it really should be
> > the maximal priority.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
> 
> Thanks for the review Petr. Patch was already merged - my goal was to be
> concise, i.e., a patch per driver / module, so the patch kinda fixes
> whatever I think is wrong with the driver with regards panic handling.
> 
> Do you think it worth to remove this patch from Greg's branch just to
> split it in 2? Personally I think it's not worth, but opinions are welcome.

No problem. It is not worth the effort.


> About the RCU part, this one really could be a new patch, a good
> improvement patch - it makes sense to me, we can think about that after
> the fixes I guess.

Yup.

Best Regards,
Petr