Re: [PATCH] kexec/crash: no crash update when kexec in progress

[Sourabh Jain]

On 08/09/24 16:00, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/05/24 at 02:07pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
> > Hello Baoquan,
> >
> > On 05/09/24 08:53, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 09/04/24 at 02:55pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
> > > > Hello Baoquan,
> > > >
> > > > On 30/08/24 16:47, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > On 08/20/24 at 12:10pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Baoquan,
> > > ......snip...
> > > > > > 2. A patch to return early from the `crash_handle_hotplug_event()` function
> > > > > > if `kexec_in_progress` is
> > > > > >       set to True. This is essentially my original patch.
> > > > > There's a race gap between the kexec_in_progress checking and the
> > > > > setting it to true which Michael has mentioned.
> > > > The window where kernel is holding kexec_lock to do kexec boot
> > > > but kexec_in_progress is yet not set to True.
> > > >
> > > > If kernel needs to handle crash hotplug event, the function
> > > > crash_handle_hotplug_event()  will not get the kexec_lock and
> > > > error out by printing error message about not able to update
> > > > kdump image.
> > > But you wanted to avoid the erroring out if it's being in
> > > kernel_kexec().  Now you are seeing at least one the noising
> > > message, aren't you?
> > Yes, but it is very rare to encounter.
> >
> > My comments on your updated code are inline below.
> >
> > > > I think it should be fine. Given that lock is already taken for
> > > > kexec kernel boot.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something major?
> > > >
> > > > > That's why I think
> > > > > maybe checking kexec_in_progress after failing to retriving
> > > > > __kexec_lock is a little better, not very sure.
> > > > Try for kexec lock before kexec_in_progress check will not solve
> > > > the original problem this patch trying to solve.
> > > >
> > > > You proposed the below changes earlier:
> > > >
> > > > -	if (!kexec_trylock()) {
> > > > +	if (!kexec_trylock() && kexec_in_progress) {
> > > >    		pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
> > > >    		crash_hotplug_unlock();
> > > Ah, I meant as below, but wrote it mistakenly.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > index 63cf89393c6e..e7c7aa761f46 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ int crash_check_hotplug_support(void)
> > >    	crash_hotplug_lock();
> > >    	/* Obtain lock while reading crash information */
> > > -	if (!kexec_trylock()) {
> > > +	if (!kexec_trylock() && !kexec_in_progress) {
> > >    		pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
> > >    		crash_hotplug_unlock();
> > >    		return 0;
> > >
> > >
> > > > Once the kexec_in_progress is set to True there is no way one can get
> > > > kexec_lock. So kexec_trylock() before kexec_in_progress is not helpful
> > > > for the problem I am trying to solve.
> > > With your patch, you could still get the error message if the race gap
> > > exist. With above change, you won't get it. Please correct me if I am
> > > wrong.
> > The above code will print an error message during the race gap. Here's why:
> >
> > Let’s say the kexec lock is acquired in the kernel_kexec() function,
> > but kexec_in_progress is not yet set to True. In this scenario, the code
> > will print
> > an error message.
> >
> > There is another issue I see with the above code:
> >
> > Consider that the system is on the kexec kernel boot path, and
> > kexec_in_progress
> > is set to True. If crash_hotplug_unlock() is called, the kernel will not
> > only update
> > the kdump image without acquiring the kexec lock, but it will also release
> > the
> > kexec lock in the out label. I believe this is incorrect.
> >
> > Please share your thoughts.
> How about this?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> index 63cf89393c6e..8ba7b1da0ded 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -505,7 +505,8 @@ int crash_check_hotplug_support(void)
>   	crash_hotplug_lock();
>   	/* Obtain lock while reading crash information */
>   	if (!kexec_trylock()) {
> -		pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
> +		if (!kexec_in_progress)
> +			pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
>   		crash_hotplug_unlock();
>   		return 0;
>   	}
> @@ -540,7 +541,8 @@ static void crash_handle_hotplug_event(unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int cpu,
>   	crash_hotplug_lock();
>   	/* Obtain lock while changing crash information */
>   	if (!kexec_trylock()) {
> -		pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
> +		if (!kexec_in_progress)
> +			pr_info("kexec_trylock() failed, elfcorehdr may be inaccurate\n");
>   		crash_hotplug_unlock();
>   		return;
>   	}

Yes putting pr_info under kexec in progress check would work.

I will rebase the patch on top on next-20240906 to avoid conflict with
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240812041651.703156-1-sourabhjain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
and send v2.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain