On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:39:18 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:04:51PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:50:04 -0800
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:38:25PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > [ Added Masami ]
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:19:30 -0500
> > > > Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:54:42PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:44:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:56:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > It might well be that I could make these functions be NMI-safe, but
> > > > > > > > > > rcu_prepare_for_idle() in particular would be a bit ugly at best.
> > > > > > > > > > So, before looking into that, I have a question. Given these proposed
> > > > > > > > > > changes, will rcu_nmi_exit_common() and rcu_nmi_enter_common() be able
> > > > > > > > > > to just use in_nmi()?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That _should_ already be the case today. That is, if we end up in a
> > > > > > > > > tracer and in_nmi() is unreliable we're already screwed anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So something like this, then? This is untested, probably doesn't even
> > > > > > > > build, and could use some careful review from both Peter and Steve,
> > > > > > > > at least. As in the below is the second version of the patch, the first
> > > > > > > > having been missing a couple of important "!" characters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I removed the static from rcu_nmi_enter()/exit() as it is called from
> > > > > > > outside, that makes it build now. Updated below is Paul's diff. I also added
> > > > > > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() to rcu_nmi_exit() to match rcu_nmi_enter() since it seemed
> > > > > > > asymmetric.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My compiler complained about the static and the __always_inline, so I
> > > > > > fixed those. But please help me out on adding the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()
> > > > > > to rcu_nmi_exit(). What bad thing happens if we leave this on only
> > > > > > rcu_nmi_enter()?
> > > > >
> > > > > It seemed odd to me we were not allowing kprobe on the rcu_nmi_enter() but
> > > > > allowing it on exit (from a code reading standpoint) so my reaction was to
> > > > > add it to both, but we could probably keep that as a separate
> > > > > patch/discussion since it is slightly unrelated to the patch.. Sorry to
> > > > > confuse the topic.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > rcu_nmi_enter() was marked NOKPROBE or other reasons. See commit
> > > > c13324a505c77 ("x86/kprobes: Prohibit probing on functions before
> > > > kprobe_int3_handler()")
> > > >
> > > > The issue was that we must not allow anything in do_int3() call kprobe
> > > > code before kprobe_int3_handler() is called. Because ist_enter() (in
> > > > do_int3()) calls rcu_nmi_enter() it had to be marked NOKPROBE. It had
> > > > nothing to do with it being RCU nor NMI, but because it was simply
> > > > called in do_int3().
> > > >
> > > > Thus, there's no reason to make rcu_nmi_exit() NOKPROBE. But a commont
> > > > to why rcu_nmi_enter() would probably be useful, like below:
> > >
> > > Thank you, Steve! Could I please have your Signed-off-by for this?
> >
> > Sure, but it was untested ;-)
>
> No problem! I will fire up rcutorture on it. ;-)
>
> But experience indicates that you cannot even make a joke around here.
> There is probably already someone out there somewhere building a
> comment-checker based on deep semantic analysis and machine learning. :-/
>
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'd like a Reviewed-by from Masami though.
>
> Sounds good! Masami, would you be willing to review?
Yes, the functions before calling kprobe_int3_handler() must not
be kprobed. It can cause an infinite recursive int3 trapping.
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you!
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
