[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] panic, kexec: Make __crash_kexec() NMI safe
On 27/06/22 13:42, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 25/06/22 12:04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> At this point I recommend going back to being ``unconventional'' with
>> the kexec locking and effectively reverting commit 8c5a1cf0ad3a ("kexec:
>> use a mutex for locking rather than xchg()").
>> That would also mean that we don't have to worry about the lockdep code
>> doing something weird in the future and breaking kexec.
>> Your change starting to is atomic_cmpxchng is most halfway to a revert
>> of commit 8c5a1cf0ad3a ("kexec: use a mutex for locking rather than
>> xchg()"). So we might as well go the whole way and just document that
>> the kexec on panic code can not use conventional kernel locking
>> primitives and has to dig deep and build it's own. At which point it
>> makes no sense for the rest of the kexec code to use anything different.
> Hm, I'm a bit torn about that one, ideally I'd prefer to keep "homegrown"
> locking primitives to just where they are needed (loading & kexec'ing), but
> I'm also not immensely fond of the "hybrid" mutex+cmpxchg approach.

8c5a1cf0ad3a ("kexec: use a mutex for locking rather than xchg()") was
straightforward enough because it turned

if (xchg(&lock, 1))
return -EBUSY;


if (!mutex_trylock(&lock))
return -EBUSY;

Now, most of the kexec_mutex uses are trylocks, except for:
- crash_get_memory_size()
- crash_shrink_memory()

I really don't want to go down the route of turning those into cmpxchg
try-loops, would it be acceptable to make those use trylocks (i.e. return
-EBUSY if the cmpxchg fails)?

Otherwise, we keep the mutexes for functions like those which go nowhere
near an NMI.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-28 19:33    [W:0.059 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site