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.p...@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.p...@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
