linux/lib/ratelimit.c

105 lines
2.9 KiB

ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to disable ratelimiting If ->interval is zero, then rate-limiting will be disabled. Alternatively, if interval is greater than zero and ->burst is zero, then rate-limiting will be applied unconditionally. The point of this distinction is to handle current users that pass zero-initialized ratelimit_state structures to ___ratelimit(), and in such cases the ->lock field will be uninitialized. Acquiring ->lock in this case is clearly not a strategy to win. Therefore, make this classification be lockless. Note that although negative ->interval and ->burst happen to be treated as if they were zero, this is an accident of the current implementation. The semantics of negative values for these fields is subject to change without notice. Especially given that Bert Karwatzki determined that no current calls to ___ratelimit() ever have negative values for these fields. This commit replaces an earlier buggy versions. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbe93a52-365e-47fe-93a4-44a44547d601@paulmck-laptop/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@web.de> Reported-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/257c3b91-e30f-48be-9788-d27a4445a416@sirena.org.uk/ Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Tested-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
2025-04-09 16:58:53 -07:00
ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to disable ratelimiting If ->interval is zero, then rate-limiting will be disabled. Alternatively, if interval is greater than zero and ->burst is zero, then rate-limiting will be applied unconditionally. The point of this distinction is to handle current users that pass zero-initialized ratelimit_state structures to ___ratelimit(), and in such cases the ->lock field will be uninitialized. Acquiring ->lock in this case is clearly not a strategy to win. Therefore, make this classification be lockless. Note that although negative ->interval and ->burst happen to be treated as if they were zero, this is an accident of the current implementation. The semantics of negative values for these fields is subject to change without notice. Especially given that Bert Karwatzki determined that no current calls to ___ratelimit() ever have negative values for these fields. This commit replaces an earlier buggy versions. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbe93a52-365e-47fe-93a4-44a44547d601@paulmck-laptop/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@web.de> Reported-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/257c3b91-e30f-48be-9788-d27a4445a416@sirena.org.uk/ Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Tested-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
2025-04-09 16:58:53 -07:00
ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to disable ratelimiting If ->interval is zero, then rate-limiting will be disabled. Alternatively, if interval is greater than zero and ->burst is zero, then rate-limiting will be applied unconditionally. The point of this distinction is to handle current users that pass zero-initialized ratelimit_state structures to ___ratelimit(), and in such cases the ->lock field will be uninitialized. Acquiring ->lock in this case is clearly not a strategy to win. Therefore, make this classification be lockless. Note that although negative ->interval and ->burst happen to be treated as if they were zero, this is an accident of the current implementation. The semantics of negative values for these fields is subject to change without notice. Especially given that Bert Karwatzki determined that no current calls to ___ratelimit() ever have negative values for these fields. This commit replaces an earlier buggy versions. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbe93a52-365e-47fe-93a4-44a44547d601@paulmck-laptop/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@web.de> Reported-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250423115409.3425-1-spasswolf@web.de/ Reported-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/257c3b91-e30f-48be-9788-d27a4445a416@sirena.org.uk/ Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Tested-by: "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
2025-04-09 16:58:53 -07:00
lib/ratelimit.c: use deferred printk() version printk_ratelimit() invokes ___ratelimit() which may invoke a normal printk() (pr_warn() in this particular case) to warn about suppressed output. Given that printk_ratelimit() may be called from anywhere, that pr_warn() is dangerous - it may end up deadlocking the system. Fix ___ratelimit() by using deferred printk(). Sasha reported the following lockdep error: : Unregister pv shared memory for cpu 8 : select_fallback_rq: 3 callbacks suppressed : process 8583 (trinity-c78) no longer affine to cpu8 : : ====================================================== : WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected : 4.14.0-rc2-next-20170927+ #252 Not tainted : ------------------------------------------------------ : migration/8/62 is trying to acquire lock: : (&port_lock_key){-.-.}, at: serial8250_console_write() : : but task is already holding lock: : (&rq->lock){-.-.}, at: sched_cpu_dying() : : which lock already depends on the new lock. : : : the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: : : -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.}: : __lock_acquire() : lock_acquire() : _raw_spin_lock() : task_fork_fair() : sched_fork() : copy_process.part.31() : _do_fork() : kernel_thread() : rest_init() : start_kernel() : x86_64_start_reservations() : x86_64_start_kernel() : verify_cpu() : : -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}: : __lock_acquire() : lock_acquire() : _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() : try_to_wake_up() : default_wake_function() : woken_wake_function() : __wake_up_common() : __wake_up_common_lock() : __wake_up() : tty_wakeup() : tty_port_default_wakeup() : tty_port_tty_wakeup() : uart_write_wakeup() : serial8250_tx_chars() : serial8250_handle_irq.part.25() : serial8250_default_handle_irq() : serial8250_interrupt() : __handle_irq_event_percpu() : handle_irq_event_percpu() : handle_irq_event() : handle_level_irq() : handle_irq() : do_IRQ() : ret_from_intr() : native_safe_halt() : default_idle() : arch_cpu_idle() : default_idle_call() : do_idle() : cpu_startup_entry() : rest_init() : start_kernel() : x86_64_start_reservations() : x86_64_start_kernel() : verify_cpu() : : -> #1 (&tty->write_wait){-.-.}: : __lock_acquire() : lock_acquire() : _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() : __wake_up_common_lock() : __wake_up() : tty_wakeup() : tty_port_default_wakeup() : tty_port_tty_wakeup() : uart_write_wakeup() : serial8250_tx_chars() : serial8250_handle_irq.part.25() : serial8250_default_handle_irq() : serial8250_interrupt() : __handle_irq_event_percpu() : handle_irq_event_percpu() : handle_irq_event() : handle_level_irq() : handle_irq() : do_IRQ() : ret_from_intr() : native_safe_halt() : default_idle() : arch_cpu_idle() : default_idle_call() : do_idle() : cpu_startup_entry() : rest_init() : start_kernel() : x86_64_start_reservations() : x86_64_start_kernel() : verify_cpu() : : -> #0 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}: : check_prev_add() : __lock_acquire() : lock_acquire() : _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() : serial8250_console_write() : univ8250_console_write() : console_unlock() : vprintk_emit() : vprintk_default() : vprintk_func() : printk() : ___ratelimit() : __printk_ratelimit() : select_fallback_rq() : sched_cpu_dying() : cpuhp_invoke_callback() : take_cpu_down() : multi_cpu_stop() : cpu_stopper_thread() : smpboot_thread_fn() : kthread() : ret_from_fork() : : other info that might help us debug this: : : Chain exists of: : &port_lock_key --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->lock : : Possible unsafe locking scenario: : : CPU0 CPU1 : ---- ---- : lock(&rq->lock); : lock(&p->pi_lock); : lock(&rq->lock); : lock(&port_lock_key); : : *** DEADLOCK *** : : 4 locks held by migration/8/62: : #0: (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: sched_cpu_dying() : #1: (&rq->lock){-.-.}, at: sched_cpu_dying() : #2: (printk_ratelimit_state.lock){....}, at: ___ratelimit() : #3: (console_lock){+.+.}, at: vprintk_emit() : : stack backtrace: : CPU: 8 PID: 62 Comm: migration/8 Not tainted 4.14.0-rc2-next-20170927+ #252 : Call Trace: : dump_stack() : print_circular_bug() : check_prev_add() : ? add_lock_to_list.isra.26() : ? check_usage() : ? kvm_clock_read() : ? kvm_sched_clock_read() : ? sched_clock() : ? check_preemption_disabled() : __lock_acquire() : ? __lock_acquire() : ? add_lock_to_list.isra.26() : ? debug_check_no_locks_freed() : ? memcpy() : lock_acquire() : ? serial8250_console_write() : _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() : ? serial8250_console_write() : serial8250_console_write() : ? serial8250_start_tx() : ? lock_acquire() : ? memcpy() : univ8250_console_write() : console_unlock() : ? __down_trylock_console_sem() : vprintk_emit() : vprintk_default() : vprintk_func() : printk() : ? show_regs_print_info() : ? lock_acquire() : ___ratelimit() : __printk_ratelimit() : select_fallback_rq() : sched_cpu_dying() : ? sched_cpu_starting() : ? rcutree_dying_cpu() : ? sched_cpu_starting() : cpuhp_invoke_callback() : ? cpu_disable_common() : take_cpu_down() : ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller() : ? cpuhp_invoke_callback() : multi_cpu_stop() : ? __this_cpu_preempt_check() : ? cpu_stop_queue_work() : cpu_stopper_thread() : ? cpu_stop_create() : smpboot_thread_fn() : ? sort_range() : ? schedule() : ? __kthread_parkme() : kthread() : ? sort_range() : ? kthread_create_on_node() : ret_from_fork() : process 9121 (trinity-c78) no longer affine to cpu8 : smpboot: CPU 8 is now offline Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170928120405.18273-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com Fixes: 6b1d174b0c27b ("ratelimit: extend to print suppressed messages on release") Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2017-10-03 16:16:45 -07:00