From 818e3dd30a4ff34fff6d90e87ae59c73f6a53691 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steven Rostedt Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:58:35 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] tracing, ring-buffer: add paranoid checks for loops While writing a new tracer, I had a bug where I caused the ring-buffer to recurse in a bad way. The bug was with the tracer I was writing and not the ring-buffer itself. But it took a long time to find the problem. This patch adds paranoid checks into the ring-buffer infrastructure that will catch bugs of this nature. Note: I put the bug back in the tracer and this patch showed the error nicely and prevented the lockup. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c index cedf4e26828..3f338063864 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c @@ -1022,8 +1022,23 @@ rb_reserve_next_event(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer, struct ring_buffer_event *event; u64 ts, delta; int commit = 0; + int nr_loops = 0; again: + /* + * We allow for interrupts to reenter here and do a trace. + * If one does, it will cause this original code to loop + * back here. Even with heavy interrupts happening, this + * should only happen a few times in a row. If this happens + * 1000 times in a row, there must be either an interrupt + * storm or we have something buggy. + * Bail! + */ + if (unlikely(++nr_loops > 1000)) { + RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, 1); + return NULL; + } + ts = ring_buffer_time_stamp(cpu_buffer->cpu); /* @@ -1532,10 +1547,23 @@ rb_get_reader_page(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer) { struct buffer_page *reader = NULL; unsigned long flags; + int nr_loops = 0; spin_lock_irqsave(&cpu_buffer->lock, flags); again: + /* + * This should normally only loop twice. But because the + * start of the reader inserts an empty page, it causes + * a case where we will loop three times. There should be no + * reason to loop four times (that I know of). + */ + if (unlikely(++nr_loops > 3)) { + RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, 1); + reader = NULL; + goto out; + } + reader = cpu_buffer->reader_page; /* If there's more to read, return this page */ @@ -1665,6 +1693,7 @@ ring_buffer_peek(struct ring_buffer *buffer, int cpu, u64 *ts) struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer; struct ring_buffer_event *event; struct buffer_page *reader; + int nr_loops = 0; if (!cpu_isset(cpu, buffer->cpumask)) return NULL; @@ -1672,6 +1701,19 @@ ring_buffer_peek(struct ring_buffer *buffer, int cpu, u64 *ts) cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu]; again: + /* + * We repeat when a timestamp is encountered. It is possible + * to get multiple timestamps from an interrupt entering just + * as one timestamp is about to be written. The max times + * that this can happen is the number of nested interrupts we + * can have. Nesting 10 deep of interrupts is clearly + * an anomaly. + */ + if (unlikely(++nr_loops > 10)) { + RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, 1); + return NULL; + } + reader = rb_get_reader_page(cpu_buffer); if (!reader) return NULL; @@ -1722,6 +1764,7 @@ ring_buffer_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts) struct ring_buffer *buffer; struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer; struct ring_buffer_event *event; + int nr_loops = 0; if (ring_buffer_iter_empty(iter)) return NULL; @@ -1730,6 +1773,19 @@ ring_buffer_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts) buffer = cpu_buffer->buffer; again: + /* + * We repeat when a timestamp is encountered. It is possible + * to get multiple timestamps from an interrupt entering just + * as one timestamp is about to be written. The max times + * that this can happen is the number of nested interrupts we + * can have. Nesting 10 deep of interrupts is clearly + * an anomaly. + */ + if (unlikely(++nr_loops > 10)) { + RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, 1); + return NULL; + } + if (rb_per_cpu_empty(cpu_buffer)) return NULL; -- 2.20.1