Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:16:55 -0500 | | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] x86/dumpstack: Cleanups and user opcode bytes Code: section, v2 |
| |
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:51:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > This version looks ok to me. I'm sure there's room for tweaking here, > > but I'm not seeing anything alarming. > > So I'm redoing the series ontop of 17-rc1 and I see a *lot* of output > during testing. For example: > > 1) is from the userspace fault, 2) is the panic from sysrq but then you have 3) > which is > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_online(new_cpu)); > > in set_task_cpu() and to top it all off, we have 4) coming from > native_smp_send_reschedule(): > > static void native_smp_send_reschedule(int cpu) > { > if (unlikely(cpu_is_offline(cpu))) { > WARN(1, "sched: Unexpected reschedule of offline CPU#%d!\n", cpu); > > so all the "fine tuning" we did to try to fit the most important splat > on the screen is for shit because those loud WARNs simply pushed it all > up into oblivion. > > And the executive summary and registers are just as worthless in such a > case. > > We could start thinking about caching all that data from the very first > splat, when we're not tainted yet and dump it last but then we can't > even know what is going out last. > > Not only because we can't guess from where stuff might warn and what > could execute - the below splats case-in-point - also, and more > importantly, we don't know how much of that data would actually go out > as there are no guarantees *when* the machine will die and stop spewing > to the serial port. > > So maybe the most important splat coming out first is maybe a good thing > because it has a higher chance of coming out before the box locks up > completely. > > So I guess we should keep hoping that serial console works and keeps on > working... > > Hmmm.
I don't think the stack tracing code could do anything better here. #3 and #4 seem like an issue with the scheduler, it doesn't realize the rest of the CPUs have all been taken offline due to the panic().
-- Josh
|  |