Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] [request for stable 3.10 inclusion] x86/nmi: Print all cpu stacks from NMI safely

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:38:23AM +0800, long.wanglong wrote:
> On 2015/5/20 21:22, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2015-05-19 14:57:46, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >> On Tue 2015-05-19 09:08:45, Wang Long wrote:
> >>> This is my backport patch series to Fix the problem(backport to 3.10):
> >>> "
> >>> When trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() is called on x86, it will trigger an
> >>> NMI on each CPU and call show_regs(). But this can lead to a hard lock
> >>> up if the NMI comes in on another printk().
> >>> "
> >>> The solution is described in commit "a9edc88093287183ac934be44f295f183b2c62dd":
> >>> when the NMI triggers, it switches the printk routine for that CPU to call 
> >>> a NMI safe printk function that records the printk in a per_cpu seq_buf 
> >>> descriptor. After all NMIs have finished recording its data, the trace_
> >>> seqs are printed in a safe context.
> >>>
> >>> The solution use "switch printk routine" and "seq_buf" infrastructures, but the
> >>> 3.10 stable have no both of them.
> >>>
> >>> The patch 1-13 backport the "seq_buf" infrastructures. in detail, patch 1, 2
> >>> and 6 only backport "seq_buf" related code.
> >>>
> >>> The patch 14-15 backport the "switch printk routine".
> >>>
> >>> The patch 16-17 is the patch to print all cpu stacks from NMI safely
> >>>
> >>> as discussed in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/13/497, in 3.10 stable, this is 
> >>> the only way to solve the problem and the backport code is a bit more.
> >>>
> >>> v1 -> v2:
> >>>  * fix the indent error.
> >>>  * rebase on 3.10.79
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> Please, wait with the integration. I am testing it with a storm of
> >> sysrq requests:
> >>
> >>     $> while true ; do echo l >/proc/sysrq-trigger ; done
> >>
> >> with iptables enabled:
> >>
> >>     $> iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-prefix "incomming packet:"
> >>
> >> and storm of pings from other machine:
> >>
> >>     $> ping -f <patched-host>
> >>
> >>
> >> The machine somehow freezes. It does not make sense. I am trying to investigate.
> > 
> > OK, it seems that the machine freezes because there are still few
> > messages printed in the NMI context, e.g.:
> > 
> > [ 3080.286277] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 3d on CPU 12.
> > [ 3637.939276] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2d on CPU 13.
> > 
> > I am not exactly sure why I get them on the test machine. But I get
> > such messages from time to time when hammering it by the pings and
> > sysrq-l requests.
> > 
> > I modified vprintk_emit() to do raw_spin_trylock(&logbuf_lock)
> > and do not try to lock console in NMI context. The trylock fails
> > from time to time but it does not longer freeze.
> > 
> > I am going to clean up the vprintk_emit() modification and send it for
> > review.
> > 
> > Anyway, this patch set seems to work as expected. It heavily reduces
> > the risk of NMI/printk-related deadlocks => it is worth having.
> > 
> > Feel free to use the following for the whole patchset (backport):
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> This patch set is the only way to solve the NMI/printk-related deadlock problems.
> Could you please include them to 3.10 stable?
> 
> Although the code a bit more, most of the code is "seq_buf" infrastructures and
> it does not affect other parts of the kernel.

Yeah, but this is way too much for a -stable kernel.  I suggest that if
a user has this problem, please move to 3.14 or newer kernels, which has
this fixed.  There's too many changes here for me to be confortable
accepting to a -stable kernel, sorry.

greg k-h
--
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/