linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@gmail.com,
	jack@suse.cz, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:15:46 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160129121545.GH31266@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160129040500.GC4820@swordfish>

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> then this will explode:
> 
> printk
>  spin_lock
>   >> coding error <<
>  spin_unlock
>   printk
>    spin_lock
>     printk
>      spin_lock
>       printk
>        spin_lock
>         ... boom
> 
> vprintk_emit() recursion detection code will not work for logbuf_lock here.
> because the only criteria how vprintk_emit() can detect a recursion is via
> static `logbuf_cpu' which is set to UINT_MAX right before it
> raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock). so from vprintk_emit() POV the logbuf_lock is
> already unlocked. which is not true.
> 
> 
> in case of memory corruption I don't think we must care, 'coding error case'
> is _probably/may be_ something that can be improved, but I'm not really 100%
> sure... and this still doesn't explain your console_sem.lock case.

Hello, I found the case this bad thing can happen. So the thought occurred
struck me that we need a patch, similar to my v3 patch, even though the
consideration of logbug_lock in the v3 patch may not be necessary now.

cpu0
====
printk
  console_trylock
  console_unlock
    up_console_sem
      up
        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
        __up
          wake_up_process
            try_to_wake_up
              raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock)
                __spin_lock_debug
                  spin_dump // once it happened
                    printk
                      console_trylock
                        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)

                        <=== DEADLOCK

cpu1
====
printk
  console_trylock
    raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
    __spin_lock_debug
      spin_dump
        printk
          ...

          <=== repeat the recursive cycle infinitely

This was the my v3 patch.
-----8<-----
>From 92c84ea45ac18010804aa09eeb9e03f797a4b2b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:33:24 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v3] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent an infinite recursive cycle
 in spin_dump()

It causes an infinite recursive cycle when using CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
in the spin_dump(). Backtrace prints printk() -> console_trylock() ->
do_raw_spin_lock() -> spin_dump() -> printk()... infinitely.

When the spin_dump() is called from printk(), we should prevent the
debug spinlock code from calling printk() again in that context. It's
reasonable to avoid printing "lockup suspected" which is just a warning
message but it would cause a real lockup definitely.

However, this patch does not deal with spin_bug(), since avoiding it in
the spin_bug() does not help it at all. Calling spin_bug() nearly means a
real lockup happened!. In that case, it's not helpful.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
---
 kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 kernel/printk/printk.c          |  6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
index 0374a59..fefc76c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
@@ -103,6 +103,8 @@ static inline void debug_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
 	lock->owner_cpu = -1;
 }
 
+extern int is_printk_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock);
+
 static void __spin_lock_debug(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
 	u64 i;
@@ -113,11 +115,19 @@ static void __spin_lock_debug(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
 			return;
 		__delay(1);
 	}
-	/* lockup suspected: */
-	spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
+
+	/*
+	 * If this function is called from printk(), then we should
+	 * not call printk() more. Or it will cause an infinite
+	 * recursive cycle!
+	 */
+	if (likely(!is_printk_lock(lock))) {
+		/* lockup suspected: */
+		spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	trigger_all_cpu_backtrace();
+		trigger_all_cpu_backtrace();
 #endif
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * The trylock above was causing a livelock.  Give the lower level arch
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 2ce8826..657f8dd 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -1981,6 +1981,12 @@ asmlinkage __visible void early_printk(const char *fmt, ...)
 }
 #endif
 
+int is_printk_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+	return	(lock == &console_sem.lock) ||
+		(lock == &logbuf_lock)      ;
+}
+
 static int __add_preferred_console(char *name, int idx, char *options,
 				   char *brl_options)
 {
-- 
1.9.1

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-29 12:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-27 12:01 [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code Byungchul Park
2016-01-27 22:49 ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-28  7:15   ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29  8:19     ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28  1:42 ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28  2:37   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28  4:36     ` byungchul.park
2016-01-28  6:05       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28  8:13         ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-28 10:41           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 10:53             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 15:42               ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-28 23:08                 ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-28 23:54                   ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29  0:54                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29  3:00                       ` Byungchul Park
2016-01-29  4:05                         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29 12:15                           ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2016-01-29  0:27                   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29  4:32                     ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-29  5:28                       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29  5:48                         ` Peter Hurley
2016-01-29  6:16                           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29  6:37                             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:30                               ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:33                                 ` [PATCH 1/3] printk: introduce console_reset_on_panic() function Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:33                                   ` [PATCH 2/3] printk: introduce reset_console_drivers() Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:47                                     ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-31 12:33                                   ` [PATCH 3/3] spinlock_debug: panic on recursive lock spin_dump() Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-02-01 16:14                                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-02-02  7:59                                       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-31 12:42                                   ` [PATCH 1/3] printk: introduce console_reset_on_panic() function kbuild test robot
2016-01-29  6:54                     ` [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code Byungchul Park
2016-01-29  7:13                       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-29  8:13                         ` Byungchul Park

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=20160129121545.GH31266@X58A-UD3R \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=akinobu.mita@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).