From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V2] notifier/panic: Introduce panic_notifier_filter
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:25:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YddQOFye7Rhr9NDl@rowland.harvard.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220106200007.112357-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com>
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 05:00:07PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> The kernel notifier infrastructure allows function callbacks to be
> added in multiple lists, which are then called in the proper time,
> like in a reboot or panic event. The panic_notifier_list specifically
> contains the callbacks that are executed during a panic event. As any
> other notifier list, the panic one has no filtering and all functions
> previously registered are executed.
>
> The kdump infrastructure, on the other hand, enables users to set
> a crash kernel that is kexec'ed in a panic event, and vmcore/logs
> are collected in such crash kernel. When kdump is set, by default
> the panic notifiers are ignored - the kexec jumps to the crash kernel
> before the list is checked and callbacks executed.
>
> There are some cases though in which kdump users might want to
> allow panic notifier callbacks to execute _before_ the kexec to
> the crash kernel, for a variety of reasons - for example, users
> may think kexec is very prone to fail and want to give a chance
> to kmsg dumpers to run (and save logs using pstore), or maybe
> some panic notifier is required to properly quiesce some hardware
> that must be used to the crash kernel. For these cases, we have
> the kernel parameter "crash_kexec_post_notifiers".
>
> But there's a problem: currently it's an "all-or-nothing" situation,
> the kdump user choice is either to execute all panic notifiers or
> none of them. Given that panic notifiers may increase the risk of a
> kdump failure, this is a tough decision and may affect the debug of
> hard to reproduce bugs, if for some reason the user choice is to
> enable panic notifiers, but kdump then fails.
>
> So, this patch aims to ease this decision: we hereby introduce a filter
> for the panic notifier list, in which users may select specifically
> which callbacks they wish to run, allowing a safer kdump. The allowlist
> should be provided using the parameter "panic_notifier_filter=a,b,..."
> where a, b are valid callback names. Invalid symbols are discarded.
>
> Currently up to 16 symbols may be passed in this list, we consider
> that this numbers allows enough flexibility (and no matter what
> architecture is used, at most 30 panic callbacks are registered).
> In an experiment using a qemu x86 virtual machine, by default only
> six callbacks are registered in the panic notifier list.
> Once a valid callback name is provided in the list, such function
> is allowed to be registered/unregistered in the panic_notifier_list;
> all other panic callbacks are ignored. Notice that this filter is
> only for the panic notifiers and has no effect in the other notifiers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
> diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
> index b8251dc0bc0f..04cb9e956058 100644
> --- a/kernel/notifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/notifier.c
> @@ -140,10 +163,16 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_register(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
> struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
> + if (unlikely(panic_nf_count) && nh == &panic_notifier_list)
> + if (!is_panic_notifier_filtered(n))
> + goto panic_filtered_out;
Forget the unlikely(); this is not a hot path.
> +
> ret = notifier_chain_register(&nh->head, n);
> +
> +panic_filtered_out:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
> return ret;
> }
It would be simpler to do:
if (!(nh == &panic_notifier_list && panic_nf_count > 0 &&
is_panic_notifier_filtered(n)))
ret = notifier_chain_register(&nh->head, n);
If there were special-purpose functions just for registering and
unregistering callbacks on the panic_notifier_list, the design would be
cleaner (no need to modify core notifier code). But making that change
would mean altering a lot of call sites. :-(
> @@ -162,10 +194,16 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
> struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
> + if (unlikely(panic_nf_count) && nh == &panic_notifier_list)
> + if (!is_panic_notifier_filtered(n))
> + goto panic_filtered_out;
> +
> ret = notifier_chain_unregister(&nh->head, n);
> +
> +panic_filtered_out:
Same idea here.
Alan Stern
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-06 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-06 20:00 [PATCH V2] notifier/panic: Introduce panic_notifier_filter Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-06 20:25 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2022-01-06 21:05 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2022-01-07 12:08 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-01-07 14:39 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YddQOFye7Rhr9NDl@rowland.harvard.edu \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox