> > Since panic_timeout is an integer passed-in through sysctl,
> > the loop boundary panic_timeout * 1000 could overflow and
> > result in a zero-delay panic when panic_timeout is greater
> > than INT_MAX/1000.
> >
> > Fix this by moving 1000 to the left, also in case i/1000
> > might never be greater than panic_timeout, change i to
> > long long so that it strictly has more bits.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -178,7 +178,8 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> > {
> > static char buf[1024];
> > va_list args;
> > - long i, i_next = 0, len;
> > + long long i;
> > + long i_next = 0, len;
> > int state = 0;
> > int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> > bool _crash_kexec_post_notifiers = crash_kexec_post_notifiers;
> > @@ -315,7 +316,7 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> > */
> > pr_emerg("Rebooting in %d seconds..\n", panic_timeout);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < panic_timeout * 1000; i += PANIC_TIMER_STEP)
{
> > + for (i = 0; i / 1000 < panic_timeout; i += PANIC_TIMER_STEP)
{
>
> Problem is, 32-bit machines generally cannot perform 64-bit divides.
> So a call is emitted to the library function __divsi64() (I forget the
exact
> name) which Linux doesn't implement (because it's so slow, and we don't
> want to be calling it by accident).
>
It's good to know, thanks for letting me know why 64-bit division
is slow, and 64-multiplication is fast, surely doing so many
64-bit division will drag a lot, and should be prevented.
> So a fix would be to call do_div() or something from
> include/linux/div64.h but it's all a great mess.
>
> However we can do native 64-bit multiplication on 32-bit! So how about
> something like
>
> --- a/kernel/panic.c~a
> +++ a/kernel/panic.c
> @@ -313,13 +313,16 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> * Delay timeout seconds before rebooting the machine.
> * We can't use the "normal" timers since we just panicked.
> */
> + u64 timeout = panic_timeout * 1000; /* avoid overflow */
> + u64 timer;
> pr_emerg("Rebooting in %d seconds..\n", panic_timeout);
> - for (i = 0; i < panic_timeout * 1000; i += PANIC_TIMER_STEP)
{
> + for (timer = 0; timer < timeout; timer += PANIC_TIMER_STEP)
{
If using u64 as the loop boundary, would it be a problem if
panic_timeout is negative? Since in the current code, if
panic_timeout is negative, the loop will not be executed;
as in the patched code, the loop boundary will be a huge
unsigned value. I guess s64 should do？
If it's not a problem, I'll submit another patch enforcing
the change, including the changes suggested by Matthew here:
> > + u64 timeout = panic_timeout * 1000; /* avoid overflow */
> 1000ULL to not truncate before the assignment.
> > + u64 timer;
> ... as you implied lateru64 timer, timer_next;
Thank you guys so much for your valuable feedback, I learned a lot!
Best,
Changming
