Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: change NR_IPIS to 8 | Date | Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:18:59 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday 18 February 2016 14:37:09 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 03:01:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > When function tracing for IPIs is enabled, we get a warning for an > > overflow of the ipi_types array with the IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE type > > as triggered by raise_nmi(): > > > > arch/arm/kernel/smp.c: In function 'raise_nmi': > > arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:489:2: error: array subscript is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds] > > trace_ipi_raise(target, ipi_types[ipinr]); > > We really don't want to treat the backtrace IPI as a normal IPI at all - > we want it to invoke the least amount of code possible. Hence this code > which avoids the issue: > > if ((unsigned)ipinr < NR_IPI) { > trace_ipi_entry_rcuidle(ipi_types[ipinr]); > __inc_irq_stat(cpu, ipi_irqs[ipinr]); > } > > However, what's missing is that the addition of tracing here missed > that CPU_BACKTRACE is not to be traced. The call in raise_nmi() > should have been converted to __smp_cross_call() to avoid the > tracing code.
I've replaced the patch locally with the version below now, and will throw it into the randconfig build test infrastructure to make sure I didn't screw up in an obvious way here.
Arnd
From 7528c9b0558fdf4de785e62e61f0dd2ffe874110 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:26:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: prevent tracing IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE
When function tracing for IPIs is enabled, we get a warning for an overflow of the ipi_types array with the IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE type as triggered by raise_nmi():
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c: In function 'raise_nmi': arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:489:2: error: array subscript is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds] trace_ipi_raise(target, ipi_types[ipinr]);
This is a correct warning as we actually overflow the array here.
This patch raise_nmi() to call __smp_cross_call() instead of smp_cross_call(), to avoid calling into ftrace. For clarification, I'm also adding a two new code comments describing how this one is special.
The warning appears to have shown up after patch e7273ff49acf ("ARM: 8488/1: Make IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE a "non-secure" SGI"), which changed the number assignment from '15' to '8', but as far as I can tell has existed since the IPI tracepoints were first introduced. If we decide to backport this patch to stable kernels, we probably need to backport e7273ff49acf as well.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Fixes: e7273ff49acf ("ARM: 8488/1: Make IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE a "non-secure" SGI") Fixes: 365ec7b17327 ("ARM: add IPI tracepoints") # v3.17 Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h index 3d7351c844aa..2fd0a2619b0b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ #include <linux/threads.h> #include <asm/irq.h> +/* number of IPIS _not_ including IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE */ #define NR_IPI 7 typedef struct { diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c index b4048e370730..9802a94260db 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ enum ipi_msg_type { IPI_CPU_STOP, IPI_IRQ_WORK, IPI_COMPLETION, + /* + * CPU_BACKTRACE is special and not included in NR_IPI + * or tracable with trace_ipi_* + */ IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE, /* * SGI8-15 can be reserved by secure firmware, and thus may @@ -757,7 +761,7 @@ static void raise_nmi(cpumask_t *mask) if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mask) && irqs_disabled()) nmi_cpu_backtrace(NULL); - smp_cross_call(mask, IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE); + __smp_cross_call(mask, IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE); } void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(bool include_self)
| |