Re: [PATCH v10 03/19] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >>>> +int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&fiq_nmi_chain, nb);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry fiq_nmi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	nmi_enter();
> >>>> +	atomic_notifier_call_chain(&fiq_nmi_chain, (unsigned long)regs, NULL);
> >>>> +	nmi_exit();
> >>>> +	set_irq_regs(old_regs);
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>> Really not happy with this.  What happens if a FIQ occurs while we're
> >>> inside register_fiq_nmi_notifier() - more specifically inside
> >>> atomic_notifier_chain_register() ?
> >>
> >> Should depend on which side of the rcu update we're on.
> > 
> > I just asked Paul McKenney, our RCU expert... essentially, yes, RCU
> > stuff itself is safe in this context.  However, RCU stuff can call into
> > lockdep if lockdep is configured, and there are questions over lockdep.
> 
> Thanks for following this up.
> 
> I originally formed the opinion RCU was safe from FIQ because it is also
> used to manage the NMI notification handlers for x86
> (register_nmi_handler) and I understood the runtime constraints on FIQ
> to be very similar.
> 
> Note that x86 manages the notifiers itself so it uses
> list_for_each_entry_rcu() rather atomic_notifier_call_chain() but
> nevertheless I think this boils down to the same thing w.r.t. safety
> concerns.
> 
> 
> > There's some things which can be done to reduce the lockdep exposure
> > to it, such as ensuring that rcu_read_lock() is first called outside
> > of FIQ context.
> 
> lockdep is automatically disabled by calling nmi_enter() so all the
> lockdep calls should end up following the early exit path based on
> current->lockdep_recursion.

Ah, that was what I was missing.  Then the notification should be
safe from NMI, so have at it!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> > There's concerns with whether either printk() in check_flags() could
> > be reached too (flags there should always indicate that IRQs were
> > disabled, so that reduces down to a question about just the first
> > printk() there.)
> > 
> > There's also the very_verbose() stuff for RCU lockdep classes which
> > Paul says must not be enabled.
> > 
> > Lastly, Paul isn't a lockdep expert, but he sees nothing that prevents
> > lockdep doing the deadlock checking as a result of the above call.
> >
> > So... this coupled with my feeling that notifiers make it too easy for
> > unreviewed code to be hooked into this path, I'm fairly sure that we
> > don't want to be calling atomic notifier chains from FIQ context.
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/