Received: by 2002:a6b:fb09:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id h9csp5063253iog; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tTG42tsPpOguhPXKRimJcW62Zi7SNo7km057+/WBJU5dwOXSZU+hYDBXWB86AwBX+Rk+B2 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:100c:b0:42d:f407:b050 with SMTP id c12-20020a056402100c00b0042df407b050mr5370991edu.39.1655921449086; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1655921449; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qza5x8k0lcw+wsNorVLieMUGZSeOvriXA7J3fkcKw9orl2RHzIvaFC65GwmnJcGy2I 77ZyvfnJMs/Z3SLs41VJUOZRQPoHoGVcNt18FktZ4f/AmF1i+fJAhlGTU0TWjQXbXmka HXke7MVsr8EuuGPXupb05ltHaJJl2rJKi3fAhHw+sFEg1Kcl4i+YrewGssV2fScYdYke yr3qClw3UXnMuXEBLxfTxisDKiaXAdBlbRgFe4+YmlLBFMEWiU0qOSdWZLg3/fVq/RnL SLkf169dWCxiCMHq09lq4mUtqxLi0d4B09IFGSd65uXw6Zfu6kLZmXijwwTdoZbvKRUP hI7g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=Ng/df5AftYa6HouAx68+qKADaV8l9xif0UQWBG3KtHk=; b=jdgVHknygIGLnPUKYxAxrPZ5NlH70Hjanvxi2ItonSIWJGOwN/duPa/6ZjVjoG6JFM jbTWE4FYOteafm197FJ21xjyqBnrXIf8ReQvVudd8F7p/tUA065znWILQCTFK+QoOViq mt4cW2XcR2qHZV9/bCNLY8VvNeXETpDahJy+MFpOYFOMvQvPhqE9MFV+XLuB8/8HveTk a1sPnOfNggHEk/CzgkveJh5TdNpmSMY+6rVxtKAQIZSzomKu+3tg13ZfNnLBUafybSHU HnBzcjZHufNgGKsS7JCF0XbTKhHol4jJ1LFb5TZA5JK/tM/bprZQ2gqRzwCaL04ciK9U 7jEA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=bL4IUZSp; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q12-20020a056402518c00b0043578d4b665si13624238edd.516.2022.06.22.11.10.22; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=bL4IUZSp; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1359544AbiFVRvR (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:51:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54916 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1358522AbiFVRvQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:51:16 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC58C33A24 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id z66so3086830vsb.3 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ng/df5AftYa6HouAx68+qKADaV8l9xif0UQWBG3KtHk=; b=bL4IUZSpTnsYqnliL9bS194bN1A3mRHAFyjqbzWhVGQjCNEoIMYjrVwIvu98Oe25r+ 1huKFJ9VYYCFmnU7KVcBaFVNfyJmhSymMGEnQ+zP0qkNRhSX1a1gG0HHCgqxJJNX/jmI yXTPQ6nhY15dm6W20jAPX6yyh/Lep/4dyUFULHP1TLtb6U+5Cjv3dJNx/v418lDe/fpB yNd8/Hmok6M752zjM4/X/QTG8L/akhbe98K1A/cIEe54azM0dcMAIba9vW+PGH5Lkpvw YHNGNtVdztM5ihHMfExXWJhki44ubcyTAJ92XCwjFk4QSMPa2PGGhgG8VCms8/+09oFW VQag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ng/df5AftYa6HouAx68+qKADaV8l9xif0UQWBG3KtHk=; b=N9dkQ6Cttzx9hrEiBmFYLLUGS2EYFJhwxKqNScyzHqZ6GZ9Y3cNQ00JGi4aD7qNuyX CtYtcAVVx/8qTjifdcZ2ipO4g6vlkJX7scMEF0D3RshvXd4hZIhRodyb3qh+wOIfWkAb 7L13vZf7zLq4sKG/MjKx7oRNpLijycokHjoxNVUH+cm9OrvhdjMShWULl2Jj9PWpB0RQ t6A9ACUaKJRtvZyh/e5YFfreJQ+5SATGK0fgsAfIJnrXBupuLsmWVT8TKpQcqVSTPXM9 +6KsTSR9ss4b0pRdyFPO4UMODPRCEKT9dY2UyZGwgZFNN5yquRMaWvdA0gyKTjxityUk /hqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/vln/7DFvB8uQBTnKCkC/ZnkVNO0cHAZ20aaLqMNcgLJqW+iqB YnA1vTwMA+prbjlxxB9rWMqlo4d9jkLv0ybeBdFyig== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:1044:b0:354:550e:4f15 with SMTP id h4-20020a056102104400b00354550e4f15mr3585283vsq.54.1655920273622; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Stephane Eranian Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 19:51:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] pr_warn_once() issue in x86 MSR extable code To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , Eric Dumazet , jpoimboe@redhat.com, Steven Rostedt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, Thanks for taking a quick look at this. I am currently OOO and I cannot test this proposed patch. I am okay with your suggestion. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:52 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the kernel is > > causing some problems with messages printed on the console. > > > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > > accesses once but > > the callstack multiple times causing confusion on the console. > > > > The last time the exception MSR code was modified (5.16) by PeterZ was: > > > > d52a7344bdfa x86/msr: Remove .fixup usage: > > > > if (!safe && wrmsr && pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: ...")) > > show_stack_regs(regs); > > > > Note that this code pattern was also present, though in a different > > form, before this commit. > > > > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > > > a358f40600b3 once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" > > functionality > > > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming that > > no caller is ever > > checking the return value of the functions. > > > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the associated > > printk() msg. > > > > I believe that having the pr_*_once() functions return true the first > > time they are called > > is useful especially when extra information, such as callstack, must > > be printed to help > > track the origin of the problem. > > > > The exception handling code seems to be the only place where the > > return value is checked > > for pr_warn_once(). A minimal change would be to create another > > version of that function > > that calls DO_ONCE() instead of DO_ONCE_LITE(), e.g., pr_warn_once_return(). > > > > I can post a patch to that effect if we all agree on the approach. > > > > Thanks. > > How about something like this? > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c > index dba2197c05c3..331310c29349 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c > @@ -94,16 +94,18 @@ static bool ex_handler_copy(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup, > static bool ex_handler_msr(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup, > struct pt_regs *regs, bool wrmsr, bool safe, int reg) > { > - if (!safe && wrmsr && > - pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x%x (tried to write 0x%08x%08x) at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n", > - (unsigned int)regs->cx, (unsigned int)regs->dx, > - (unsigned int)regs->ax, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip)) > + if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(!safe && wrmsr)) { > + pr_warn("unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x%x (tried to write 0x%08x%08x) at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n", > + (unsigned int)regs->cx, (unsigned int)regs->dx, > + (unsigned int)regs->ax, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip); > show_stack_regs(regs); > + } > > - if (!safe && !wrmsr && > - pr_warn_once("unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x%x at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n", > - (unsigned int)regs->cx, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip)) > + if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(!safe && !wrmsr)) { > + pr_warn("unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x%x at rIP: 0x%lx (%pS)\n", > + (unsigned int)regs->cx, regs->ip, (void *)regs->ip); > show_stack_regs(regs); > + } > > if (!wrmsr) { > /* Pretend that the read succeeded and returned 0. */ > diff --git a/include/linux/once_lite.h b/include/linux/once_lite.h > index 861e606b820f..63c3bbcef694 100644 > --- a/include/linux/once_lite.h > +++ b/include/linux/once_lite.h > @@ -9,15 +9,27 @@ > */ > #define DO_ONCE_LITE(func, ...) \ > DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(true, func, ##__VA_ARGS__) > -#define DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(condition, func, ...) \ > + > +#define __ONCE_LITE_IF(condition) \ > ({ \ > static bool __section(".data.once") __already_done; \ > - bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \ > + bool __ret_cond = !!(condition); \ > + bool __ret_once = false; \ > \ > if (unlikely(__ret_do_once && !__already_done)) { \ > __already_done = true; \ > - func(__VA_ARGS__); \ > + __ret_once = true; \ > } \ > + unlikely(__ret_once); \ > + }) > + > +#define DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(condition, func, ...) \ > + ({ \ > + bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \ > + \ > + if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(__ret_do_once)) \ > + func(__VA_ARGS__); \ > + \ > unlikely(__ret_do_once); \ > }) >