Re: [PATCH] kdump: Fix crash_kexec - smp_send_stop race in panic

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:34:09 +0200
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
> 
> After the discussion with Eric and Vivek the following patch
> seems to be a good solution to me. Could you accept this patch?
> 
> When two CPUs call panic at the same time there is a
> possible race condition that can stop kdump. The first
> CPU calls crash_kexec() and the second CPU calls
> smp_send_stop() in panic() before crash_kexec() finished
> on the first CPU. So the second CPU stops the first CPU
> and therefore kdump fails:
> 
> 1st CPU:
> panic()->crash_kexec()->mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)-> do kdump
> 
> 2nd CPU:
> panic()->crash_kexec()->kexec_mutex already held by 1st CPU
>        ->smp_send_stop()-> stop 1st CPU (stop kdump)
> 
> This patch fixes the problem by introducing a spinlock in
> panic that allows only one CPU to process crash_kexec() and
> the subsequent panic code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/panic.c |    8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/kernel/panic.c
> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(panic_blink);
>   */
>  NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
>  {
> +	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(panic_lock);
>  	static char buf[1024];
>  	va_list args;
>  	long i, i_next = 0;
> @@ -82,6 +83,13 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt,
>  #endif
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * Only one CPU is allowed to execute the panic code from here. For
> +	 * multiple parallel invocations of panic all other CPUs will wait on
> +	 * the panic_lock. They are stopped afterwards by smp_send_stop().
> +	 */
> +	spin_lock(&panic_lock);
> +

hm.  Boy.  That'll stop 'em OK!

Should this be done earlier in the function?  As it stands we'll have
multiple CPUs scribbling on buf[] at the same time and all trying to
print the same thing at the same time, dumping their stacks, etc. 
Perhaps it would be better to single-thread all that stuff.

Also...  this patch affects all CPU architectures, all configs, etc. 
So we're expecting that every architecture's smp_send_stop() is able to
stop a CPU which is spinning in spin_lock(), possibly with local
interrupts disabled.  Will this work?

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec