From patchwork Tue Sep 2 11:49:16 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Daniel Thompson X-Patchwork-Id: 4824641 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-linux-arm@patchwork.kernel.org Delivered-To: patchwork-parsemail@patchwork1.web.kernel.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.19.201]) by patchwork1.web.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717059F2ED for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519D5201B9 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430CB20176 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XOmaj-0000Mw-Nq; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:49:41 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XOmag-00005A-HQ for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:49:39 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e4so7667170wiv.8 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ep2o7g9GuiA8vz0zN0BKIV/YjB0LOekY2Tw5TPtSCyQ=; b=MHMid1N5mC5tXiu+q7r+NsnfElg2tJy1ZB9/krF/+r1sLBRUfUjYy+tT8fEEGuf1f4 AB/xmL2REDJitZn+ts+j5U9eL7EZfnwYgiVRhFar89OOfngKoZDLHXLl4ehu0j2DgLWc tJsiCZHck8IvjWCSpSdIBLap9YoEejgsA5nMIuMl6rsdderKxgnbM5wDjYmgVjZMgkud 8xiJC9NCvTWrPeMw+2x2HuSn/xlJ+xnXoXRx+o4DYAHW2ybtWpmWMOTrDTx9VXoBfEFY Psn7oxiY6lkfbSWf7J9SIo/N4zuQ6hYFh6y91F4SbhOA1sQr4h7dde2dr9nVm16Apjcc bYbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmlHjOGuRgaiQFyVx2W8FB/ASkRr12UkI1/HiVOnHGOR/e5UVJbSYqsft+qahkGJx0VKGJ4 X-Received: by 10.180.186.230 with SMTP id fn6mr28362339wic.44.1409658555966; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harvey.bri.st.com (cpc4-aztw19-0-0-cust157.18-1.cable.virginm.net. [82.33.25.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s7sm8915439wjo.48.2014.09.02.04.49.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5405AEBC.9020904@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:49:16 +0100 From: Daniel Thompson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/19] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler References: <1408369264-14242-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1408466769-20004-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1408466769-20004-4-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20140819173742.GG30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53F39377.1070308@linaro.org> <20140828150112.GD30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140828150112.GD30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20140902_044938_881779_A843C4EE X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 29.27 ) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Catalin Marinas , patches@linaro.org, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, Linus Walleij , Nicolas Pitre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Anton Vorontsov , Ben Dooks , John Stultz , Fabio Estevam , Colin Cross , "Paul E. McKenney" , kernel-team@android.com, Dave Martin , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patchwork-linux-arm=patchwork.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mail.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP On 28/08/14 16:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> On 19/08/14 18:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: >>>> +int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb) >>>> +{ >>>> + return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&fiq_nmi_chain, nb); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry fiq_nmi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs); >>>> + >>>> + nmi_enter(); >>>> + atomic_notifier_call_chain(&fiq_nmi_chain, (unsigned long)regs, NULL); >>>> + nmi_exit(); >>>> + set_irq_regs(old_regs); >>>> +} >>> >>> Really not happy with this. What happens if a FIQ occurs while we're >>> inside register_fiq_nmi_notifier() - more specifically inside >>> atomic_notifier_chain_register() ? >> >> Should depend on which side of the rcu update we're on. > > I just asked Paul McKenney, our RCU expert... essentially, yes, RCU > stuff itself is safe in this context. However, RCU stuff can call into > lockdep if lockdep is configured, and there are questions over lockdep. > > There's some things which can be done to reduce the lockdep exposure > to it, such as ensuring that rcu_read_lock() is first called outside > of FIQ context. > > There's concerns with whether either printk() in check_flags() could > be reached too (flags there should always indicate that IRQs were > disabled, so that reduces down to a question about just the first > printk() there.) > > There's also the very_verbose() stuff for RCU lockdep classes which > Paul says must not be enabled. > > Lastly, Paul isn't a lockdep expert, but he sees nothing that prevents > lockdep doing the deadlock checking as a result of the above call. > > So... this coupled with my feeling that notifiers make it too easy for > unreviewed code to be hooked into this path, I'm fairly sure that we > don't want to be calling atomic notifier chains from FIQ context. Having esablished (elsewhere in the thread) that RCU usage is safe from FIQ I have been working on the assumption that your feeling regarding unreviewed code is sufficient on its own to avoid using notifiers (and also to avoid a list of function pointers like on x86). Therefore I have made the changes requested and produced a before/after patch to show the impact of this. I will merge this into the FIQ patchset shortly (I need to run a few more build tests first). Personally I still favour using notifiers and think the coupling below is excessive. Nevertheless I've run a couple of basic tests on the code below and it works fine. diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/fiq.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/fiq.h index 175bfed..a25c952 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/fiq.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/fiq.h @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ extern void disable_fiq(int fiq); extern int ack_fiq(int fiq); extern void eoi_fiq(int fiq); extern bool has_fiq(int fiq); -extern int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); extern void fiq_register_mapping(int irq, struct fiq_chip *chip); /* helpers defined in fiqasm.S: */ diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kgdb.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kgdb.h index 6563da0..cb5ccd6 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kgdb.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kgdb.h @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ extern void kgdb_handle_bus_error(void); extern int kgdb_fault_expected; extern int kgdb_register_fiq(unsigned int fiq); +extern void kgdb_handle_fiq(struct pt_regs *regs); #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */ diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c b/arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c index b2bd1c7..7422b58 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c @@ -43,12 +43,14 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include #include #include #include +#include #include #define FIQ_OFFSET ({ \ @@ -65,7 +67,6 @@ static unsigned long no_fiq_insn; static int fiq_start = -1; static RADIX_TREE(fiq_data_tree, GFP_KERNEL); static DEFINE_MUTEX(fiq_data_mutex); -static ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD(fiq_nmi_chain); /* Default reacquire function * - we always relinquish FIQ control @@ -218,17 +219,23 @@ bool has_fiq(int fiq) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(has_fiq); -int register_fiq_nmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb) -{ - return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&fiq_nmi_chain, nb); -} - asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry fiq_nmi_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) { struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs); nmi_enter(); - atomic_notifier_call_chain(&fiq_nmi_chain, (unsigned long)regs, NULL); + + /* these callbacks deliberately avoid using a notifier chain in + * order to ensure code review happens (drivers cannot "secretly" + * employ FIQ without modifying this chain of calls). + */ +#ifdef CONFIG_KGDB_FIQ + kgdb_handle_fiq(regs); +#endif +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_GIC + gic_handle_fiq_ipi(); +#endif + nmi_exit(); set_irq_regs(old_regs); } diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/kgdb.c b/arch/arm/kernel/kgdb.c index b77b885..630a3ef 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/kgdb.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/kgdb.c @@ -312,12 +312,13 @@ struct kgdb_arch arch_kgdb_ops = { }; #ifdef CONFIG_KGDB_FIQ -static int kgdb_handle_fiq(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long arg, - void *data) +void kgdb_handle_fiq(struct pt_regs *regs) { - struct pt_regs *regs = (void *) arg; int actual; + if (!kgdb_fiq) + return; + if (!kgdb_nmicallback(raw_smp_processor_id(), regs)) return NOTIFY_OK; @@ -333,11 +334,6 @@ static int kgdb_handle_fiq(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long arg, return NOTIFY_OK; } -static struct notifier_block kgdb_fiq_notifier = { - .notifier_call = kgdb_handle_fiq, - .priority = 100, -}; - int kgdb_register_fiq(unsigned int fiq) { static struct fiq_handler kgdb_fiq_desc = { .name = "kgdb", }; @@ -357,7 +353,6 @@ int kgdb_register_fiq(unsigned int fiq) } kgdb_fiq = fiq; - register_fiq_nmi_notifier(&kgdb_fiq_notifier); return 0; } diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c index bda5a91..8821160 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c @@ -502,13 +502,17 @@ static void __init gic_init_fiq(struct gic_chip_data *gic, /* * Fully acknowledge (both ack and eoi) a FIQ-based IPI */ -static int gic_handle_fiq_ipi(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long regs, - void *data) +void gic_handle_fiq_ipi(void) { struct gic_chip_data *gic = &gic_data[0]; - void __iomem *cpu_base = gic_data_cpu_base(gic); + void __iomem *cpu_base; unsigned long irqstat, irqnr; + if (!gic || !gic->fiq_enable) + return; + + cpu_base = gic_data_cpu_base(gic); + if (WARN_ON(!in_nmi())) return NOTIFY_BAD; @@ -525,13 +529,6 @@ static int gic_handle_fiq_ipi(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long regs, return NOTIFY_OK; } - -/* - * Notifier to ensure IPI FIQ is acknowledged correctly. - */ -static struct notifier_block gic_fiq_ipi_notifier = { - .notifier_call = gic_handle_fiq_ipi, -}; #else /* CONFIG_FIQ */ static inline void gic_set_group_irq(void __iomem *base, unsigned int hwirq, int group) {} @@ -1250,10 +1247,6 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, #ifdef CONFIG_SMP set_smp_cross_call(gic_raise_softirq); register_cpu_notifier(&gic_cpu_notifier); -#ifdef CONFIG_FIQ - if (gic_data_fiq_enable(gic)) - register_fiq_nmi_notifier(&gic_fiq_ipi_notifier); -#endif #endif set_handle_irq(gic_handle_irq); } diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h index 45e2d8c..52a5676 100644 --- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h @@ -101,5 +101,8 @@ static inline void __init register_routable_domain_ops { gic_routable_irq_domain_ops = ops; } + +void gic_handle_fiq_ipi(void); + #endif /* __ASSEMBLY */ #endif