lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] kdb: Switch kdb_printf to use safer console poll APIs
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 16:40, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:16:17PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:33, Daniel Thompson
> > <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:04:31PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > In kgdb NMI context, polling driver APIs are more safer to use instead
> > > > of console APIs since the polling drivers know they will execute from
> > > > all sorts of crazy places. And for the most common use cases this would
> > > > also result in no console handler ever being called. So switch to use
> > > > polling driver APIs in case a particular console supports polling mode.
> > >
> > > This comment seems rather half hearted, not least because it doesn't
> > > explain what the current problem is nor why using the polling API is
> > > safer.
> > >
> >
> > TBH, some sentences in the above comment were borrowed from your
> > suggestion here [1]. But I agree that it doesn't portray the complete
> > picture. So how about:
> >
> > ====
> > In kgdb NMI context, calling console handlers isn't safe due to locks
> > used in those handlers which could lead to a deadlock. Although, using
> > oops_in_progress increases the chance to bypass locks in most console
> > handlers but it might not be sufficient enough in case a console uses
> > more locks (VT/TTY is good example).
> >
> > So instead switch to use lockless polling driver APIs in case a
> > particular console supports polling mode which is common for most kdb
> > use-cases and would result in no console handler ever being called.
> > ====
>
> Better, although the later paragraph still seems rather vague to me.
> Compare to:
>
> Currently when a driver provides both polling I/O and a console then kdb
> will output using the console. We can increase robustness by using the
> currently active polling I/O driver (which should be lockless) instead
> of the corresponding console. For several common cases (e.g. an
> embedded system with a single serial port that is used both for console
> output and debugger I/O) this will result in no console handler being
> used.
>

Looks good, will use it instead.

>
> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/20/356
> >
> > > Compare the above against the advice in
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes
> > > and I think it comes up short. Perhaps also consider Ingo Molnar's much
> > > more concise suggestion on describing changes:
> > >
> > > : Please use the customary changelog style we use in the kernel:
> > > : " Current code does (A), this has a problem when (B).
> > > : We can improve this doing (C), because (D)."
> > > -- http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/1311.1/01157.html
> >
> > Thanks for the pointers.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > > > index 3a5a068..8e0d581 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/kgdb.h>
> > > > #include <linux/kdb.h>
> > > > #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/tty_driver.h>
> > > > #include "kdb_private.h"
> > > >
> > > > #define CMD_BUFLEN 256
> > > > @@ -699,11 +700,24 @@ int vkdb_printf(enum kdb_msgsrc src, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > for_each_console(c) {
> > > > + int line;
> > > > + struct tty_driver *p;
> > > > +
> > > > if (!(c->flags & CON_ENABLED))
> > > > continue;
> > > > - ++oops_in_progress;
> > > > - c->write(c, cp, retlen - (cp - kdb_buffer));
> > > > - --oops_in_progress;
> > > > + p = c->device ? c->device(c, &line) : NULL;
> > > > + if (p && p->ops && p->ops->poll_put_char) {
> > >
> > > What prevents this logic from matching an active console that hasn't
> > > been selected as the polling driver?
> >
> > Yes you are correct and it could lead to invoking poll_put_char()
> > without poll_init(). And we couldn't invoke poll_init() here as that
> > still comes with locks and could sleep. So one way to overcome this
> > would be to pass selected polling driver via dbg_io_ops and use
> > polling APIs only if the underlying console driver matches that
> > polling driver.
>
> Agree.
>
> Note that this is all I ever expected to look at when I commented about
> before.

Okay.

>
>
> > > > + len = retlen - (cp - kdb_buffer);
> > > > + cp2 = cp;
> > > > + while (len--) {
> > > > + p->ops->poll_put_char(p, line, *cp2);
> > > > + cp2++;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Assuming it is possible to identify the console that matches the
> > > currently selected polling driver can't we just drop the
> > > is_console test and get rid of this branch entirely.
> >
> > Have a look at my suggested approach above.
> >
> > >
> > > The only reason for the is_console test is to avoid issuing messages
> > > twice so if we are able to suppress the c->write() for the same UART
> > > then is_console check becomes pointless and can go.
> >
> > I did consider removing is_console check but it looks like it's not
> > only limited to polling drivers but also used at other places (see [1]
> > [2]) as well.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/usb/early/ehci-dbgp.c#n1061
> > [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/tty/serial/kgdb_nmi.c#n48
>
> IIUC you mean that the logic to match devices only works for tty drivers
> and there examples are not tty drivers.
>
> This could probably be solved but no need to get too tied in knots. It's
> fine to keep the is_console check for now.
>

Okay.

> However rather than replicate the polled I/O write code a third and
> fourth time lets get the I/O logic pulled out into proper functions.
>

Sure, will do the refactoring.

-Sumit

>
>
> Daniel.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-26 14:09    [W:0.054 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site