Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 16:09 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > When an interrupt is returning to a soft-disabled context (which can
>> > happen for non-maskable interrupts or synchronous interrupts), it goes
>> > through the motions of soft-disabling again, including calling
>> > TRACE_DISABLE_INTS (i.e., trace_hardirqs_off()).
>> >
>> > This is not necessary, because we must already be soft-disabled in the
>> > interrupt context, it also may be causing crashes in the irq tracing
>> > code to re-enter as an nmi. Replace it with a warning to ensure that
>> > soft-interrupts are still disabled.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 10 +++++++---
>> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> So this patch is the core of the bug fix I gather.
>>
>> Git blames says:
>>
>> Fixes: 7c0482e3d055 ("powerpc/irq: Fix another case of lazy IRQ state
>> getting out of sync")
>> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.4+
>>
>> But I'm wondering how this has been broken that long without us
>> noticing? You hit it doing some sort of perf stress test I think - so is
>> it just that we've never pushed hard enough? Or did something change to
>> expose this? Or we're just not sure?
>
> We have some traps that do local_irq_enable ... you may want to double
> check instruction emu, page faults, alignment etc... I wouldn't be
> surprised if we have case where an interrupt "returns" soft enabled.
AFAICT those all check that they're coming from a soft-enabled context:
if (!arch_irq_disabled_regs(regs))
local_irq_enable();
And the code Nick is patching is the case where we're returning to a
soft-disabled context. So I think the patch is good.
cheers
