RE: [V5 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and crash_kexec() called directly

["河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1563 bytes --]

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:57:38AM +0000, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > We can do so, but I think resetting panic_cpu always would be
> > simpler and safer.

I'll state in detail.

When we call crash_kexec() without entering panic() and return from
it, panic() should be called eventually.  But the code paths are
a bit complicated and there are many implementations for each
architecture.  So one day, this assumption may be broken; the CPU
doesn't call panic().  Or the CPU may fail to call panic() because
we are already in insane state.  It would be nervous, but allowing
another CPU to process panic routines by resetting panic_cpu
is safer approach.

> Well, I think executing code needlessly *especially* at panic time is
> not all that rosy either.
> 
> Besides something like this:
> 
> 	static bool kexec_failed;
> 
> 	...
> 
>         if (crash_kexec_post_notifiers && !kexec_failed)
> 		kexec_failed = __crash_kexec(NULL);
> 
> is as simple as it gets.

Since this code is executed only once due to panic_cpu,
I think introducing this logic is not much valuable.
Also, current implementation is already quite simple:

panic()
{
...
	__crash_kexec(NULL) {
		if (mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) {
			if (kexec_crash_image) {
				/* don't return */
			}
		}
		mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex)
	}

How do you think?

Regards,
--
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Ltd. Research & Development Group


ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥