From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
jpoimboe@redhat.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pr_warn_once() issue in x86 MSR extable code
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:52:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBRVF9qmxKFgmjZpzN3tx=U+_8udECMLHs7BrtzfPwmuhQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the kernel is
> causing some problems with messages printed on the console.
>
> We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR
> accesses once but
> the callstack multiple times causing confusion on the console.
>
> The last time the exception MSR code was modified (5.16) by PeterZ was:
>
> d52a7344bdfa x86/msr: Remove .fixup usage:
>
> if (!safe && wrmsr && pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: ..."))
> show_stack_regs(regs);
>
> Note that this code pattern was also present, though in a different
> form, before this commit.
>
> The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13):
>
> a358f40600b3 once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once"
> functionality
>
> Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming that
> no caller is ever
> checking the return value of the functions.
>
> This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the associated
> printk() msg.
>
> I believe that having the pr_*_once() functions return true the first
> time they are called
> is useful especially when extra information, such as callstack, must
> be printed to help
> track the origin of the problem.
>
> The exception handling code seems to be the only place where the
> return value is checked
> for pr_warn_once(). A minimal change would be to create another
> version of that function
> that calls DO_ONCE() instead of DO_ONCE_LITE(), e.g., pr_warn_once_return().
>
> I can post a patch to that effect if we all agree on the approach.
>
> Thanks.
How about something like this?
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
index dba2197c05c3..331310c29349 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
@@ -94,16 +94,18 @@ static bool ex_handler_copy(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup,
static bool ex_handler_msr(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup,
struct pt_regs *regs, bool wrmsr, bool safe, int reg)
{
- if (!safe && wrmsr &&
- pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x%x (tried to write 0x%08x%08x) at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n",
- (unsigned int)regs->cx, (unsigned int)regs->dx,
- (unsigned int)regs->ax, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip))
+ if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(!safe && wrmsr)) {
+ pr_warn("unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x%x (tried to write 0x%08x%08x) at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n",
+ (unsigned int)regs->cx, (unsigned int)regs->dx,
+ (unsigned int)regs->ax, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip);
show_stack_regs(regs);
+ }
- if (!safe && !wrmsr &&
- pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x%x at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n",
- (unsigned int)regs->cx, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip))
+ if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(!safe && !wrmsr)) {
+ pr_warn("unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x%x at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n",
+ (unsigned int)regs->cx, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip);
show_stack_regs(regs);
+ }
if (!wrmsr) {
/* Pretend that the read succeeded and returned 0. */
diff --git a/include/linux/once_lite.h b/include/linux/once_lite.h
index 861e606b820f..63c3bbcef694 100644
--- a/include/linux/once_lite.h
+++ b/include/linux/once_lite.h
@@ -9,15 +9,27 @@
*/
#define DO_ONCE_LITE(func, ...) \
DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(true, func, ##__VA_ARGS__)
-#define DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(condition, func, ...) \
+
+#define __ONCE_LITE_IF(condition) \
({ \
static bool __section(".data.once") __already_done; \
- bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
+ bool __ret_cond = !!(condition); \
+ bool __ret_once = false; \
\
if (unlikely(__ret_do_once && !__already_done)) { \
__already_done = true; \
- func(__VA_ARGS__); \
+ __ret_once = true; \
} \
+ unlikely(__ret_once); \
+ })
+
+#define DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(condition, func, ...) \
+ ({ \
+ bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
+ \
+ if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(__ret_do_once)) \
+ func(__VA_ARGS__); \
+ \
unlikely(__ret_do_once); \
})
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-17 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-17 11:08 [RFC] pr_warn_once() issue in x86 MSR extable code Stephane Eranian
2022-06-17 14:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-06-22 17:51 ` Stephane Eranian
2022-07-20 12:48 ` Stephane Eranian
2022-07-20 13:44 ` [PATCH] x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Peter Zijlstra
2022-07-21 8:52 ` [tip: x86/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
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=YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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