lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Reduce __print_symbol/sprint_symbol stack usage. (v3)
From
Date
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:02 +0100, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > Hello all,
>
> Hi, Gilboa
>
> > (1) Problem:
> > I. When CONFIG_4KSTACKS and CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW are enabled on
> > i386 kernels, do_IRQ calls dump_stack which, down the path, uses
> > print_symbol (display) and sprint_symbol (format) to format and display
> > the function name/address/module.
> > Both function use stack based char array (~350 bytes) that, given the
> > initial state (<512 bytes of stack space) may overrun the stack.
> > II. (Comments - previous patches) Using spinlock protected static
> > storage within these functions might block or even deadlock dump_stack
> > (E.g. Crash within dump_stack itself)
> >
> > (2) Solution:
> > I. Break sprint_symbol into sprint_symbol (API functions; keeps the
> > current interface) and sprint_symbol_helper (helper function with
> > minimal local storage).
> > II. Replace the char array in __print_symbol with two spinlock protected
> > static char arrays; call the __sprint_symbol helper function instead of
> > sprint_symbol.
> > III. Ignore the spinlock if oops_in_progress is set.
>
> This is getting more and more convoluted :(
>
> The problem with the spinlock isn't just that during a panic, we can not
> trust the kernel structures enough to use spinlocks. It might well
> happen that lockdep code might want to use print_symbol (and I think it
> does, so this is not just theoretical) to dump the stack when someone
> calls spin_lock_irqsave.
> But now, because print_symbol itself uses spin_lock_irqsave, we might
> get into a recursive situation and a produce a deadlock.
>
> On the other hand, if you take the other approach of reducing the stack
> usage by creating a printk_symbol interface, the stack usage would drop
> from 350 bytes to 128 bytes and your problem would go away entirely.
>

OK. I'll wait for additional comments while thinking about a third
route. (Following your suggestion)

- Gilboa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-21 18:21    [W:0.076 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site