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;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2 2/5] printk: Add NMI safety to
 console_flush_on_panic() and console_unblank()
In-Reply-To: <ZK14p-ocWuuHkSAQ@alley>
References: <20230710134524.25232-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230710134524.25232-3-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <ZK14p-ocWuuHkSAQ@alley>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 23:17:49 +0206
Message-ID: <878rbkrg16.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-07-11, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> Just to be sure. The semaphore is not NMI safe because even the
> trylock takes an internal spin lock. Am I right, please?

Yes, that is one of the reasons. Sergey mentioned another (waking a task
on up()).

> Alternative solution would be to make down_trylock() NMI safe
> by using raw_spin_trylock_irqsave() for the internal lock.

NMI contexts are only allowed to take raw spinlocks if those spinlocks
are only used from NMI context. Otherwise you could have deadlock:

raw_spin_lock()
--- NMI ---
raw_spin_lock()

Using a trylock does not avoid the deadlock danger.

> Another question is whether we want to call c->unblank()
> in NMI even when down_trylock() was NMI safe. It seems that it
> is implemented only for struct console vt_console_driver.
> I am pretty sure that it takes more internal locks which
> are not NMI safe either.

Yes, it does. As an example, it calls mod_timer(), which is also not NMI
safe. Clearly the unblank() callback must not be called in NMI context.

> Finally, it is not only about NMI. Any locks might cause a deadlock
> in panic() in any context. It is because other CPUs are stopped
> and might block some locks.

With the atomic/threaded model this is not true. The port ownership can
be safely taken over from stopped CPUs.

> In my opinion, we should handle c->unblank() in panic() the same way
> as c->write() in panic().

I do not agree. Clearly unblank() is not NMI safe. Also, in current
mainline code, console_unblank() will already give up if the trylock
failed (rather than ignoring the lock, like write() does). So
console_unblank() might as well also give up if in NMI context.

John