lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] sysrq: don't hold the sysrq_key_table_lock during the handler
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:41:54AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:51:48AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:54:02PM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> > > sysrq_key_table_lock is used to protect the sysrq_key_table, make sure
> > > we get/replace the right operation for the sysrq. But in __handle_sysrq,
> > > kernel will hold this lock and disable irqs until we finished op_p->handler().
> > > This may cause false positive watchdog alert when we're doing "show-task-states"
> > > on a system with many tasks.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/sysrq.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/sysrq.c b/drivers/char/sysrq.c
> > > index 878ac0c..0856e2e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/sysrq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/sysrq.c
> > > @@ -520,9 +520,11 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, struct tty_struct *tty, int check_mask)
> > > if (!check_mask || sysrq_on_mask(op_p->enable_mask)) {
> > > printk("%s\n", op_p->action_msg);
> > > console_loglevel = orig_log_level;
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> > > op_p->handler(key, tty);
> > > } else {
> > > printk("This sysrq operation is disabled.\n");
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> > > }
> > > } else {
> > > printk("HELP : ");
> > > @@ -541,8 +543,8 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, struct tty_struct *tty, int check_mask)
> > > }
> > > printk("\n");
> > > console_loglevel = orig_log_level;
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> > > }
> > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sysrq_key_table_lock, flags);
> > > }
> > >
> > > void handle_sysrq(int key, struct tty_struct *tty)
> > > --
> > > 1.7.2
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This creates the possibility of a race in the handler. Not that it happens
> > often, but sysrq keys can be registered and unregistered dynamically. If that
> > lock isn't held while we call the keys handler, the code implementing that
> > handler can live in a module that gets removed while its executing, leading to
> > an oops, etc. I think the better solution would be to use an rcu lock here.
>
> I'd simply changed spinlock to a mutex.
>
I don't think you can do that safely in this path, as sysrqs will be looked up
in both process (echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger) context and in interrupt
(alt-sysrq-t) context. If a mutex is locked and you try to take it in interrupt
context, you get a sleeping-in-interrupt panic IIRC
Neil

> --
> Dmitry
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-26 22:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans