Re: [PATCH v2] kdb: Make kdb_printf robust to run in NMI context

[Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:05, Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:03:47PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > While rounding up CPUs via NMIs, its possible that a rounded up CPU
> > maybe holding a console port lock leading to kgdb master CPU stuck in
> > a deadlock during invocation of console write operations. So in order
> > to avoid such a deadlock, invoke bust_spinlocks() prior to invocation
> > of console handlers.
> >
> > Also, add a check for console port to be enabled prior to invocation of
> > corresponding handler.
>
> Perhaps this should have been two patches.
>

Okay, will split this patch into two.

> In fact, to be honest, I'd suggest combining all the patches to improve
> kdb console handling (including a fixed version of the RFC) into a
> single patch set.

Yeah it makes sense to have a combined patch set to improve kdb
console handling. But I posted the RFC patch separately as I expected
comments and discussions to come up with an accepted approach.

So let me wait for an agreement on RFC patch after which I can include
that patch in this patch set.

>
>
> > Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> > Suggested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Use oops_in_progress directly instead of bust_spinlocks().
> >
> >  kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > index 924bc92..3a5a068 100644
> > --- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > +++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > @@ -699,7 +699,11 @@ int vkdb_printf(enum kdb_msgsrc src, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
> >                       }
> >               }
> >               for_each_console(c) {
> > +                     if (!(c->flags & CON_ENABLED))
> > +                             continue;
> > +                     ++oops_in_progress;
>
> Given the subtly of what is going on I think we need some comments in
> the code on what we are doing and why.

Sure, will add comments.

>
>
> >                       c->write(c, cp, retlen - (cp - kdb_buffer));
> > +                     --oops_in_progress;
> >                       touch_nmi_watchdog();
> >               }
> >       }
> > @@ -761,7 +765,11 @@ int vkdb_printf(enum kdb_msgsrc src, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
> >                       }
> >               }
> >               for_each_console(c) {
> > +                     if (!(c->flags & CON_ENABLED))
> > +                             continue;
> > +                     ++oops_in_progress;
> >                       c->write(c, moreprompt, strlen(moreprompt));
> > +                     --oops_in_progress;
> >                       touch_nmi_watchdog();
>
> As with the other patches maybe the first patch in the set should be
> factoring out the common code before making changes to it.

Sure, will factor out common code as initial patch.

-Sumit

>
>
> Daniel.