syslog: was: [PATCH next v2 3/3] printk: remove logbuf_lock, add syslog_lock

[Petr Mladek]

On Tue 2020-12-01 21:59:41, John Ogness wrote:
> Since the ringbuffer is lockless, there is no need for it to be
> protected by @logbuf_lock. Remove @logbuf_lock.
> 
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1490,19 +1444,30 @@ static int syslog_print_all(char __user *buf, int size, bool clear)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	time = printk_time;
> -	logbuf_lock_irq();
>  	clr_seq = atomic64_read(&clear_seq);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Find first record that fits, including all following records,
>  	 * into the user-provided buffer for this dump.
>  	 */
> +
>  	prb_for_each_info(clr_seq, prb, seq, &info, &line_count)
>  		len += get_record_print_text_size(&info, line_count, true, time);
>  
> -	/* move first record forward until length fits into the buffer */
> +	/*
> +	 * Keep track of the latest in case new records are coming in fast
> +	 * and overwriting the older records.
> +	 */

"overwriting the older records" sounds like the code is somehow able
to remove the overwritten records from "len". But it is not true.

> +	newest_seq = seq;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Move first record forward until length fits into the buffer. This
> +	 * is a best effort attempt. If @newest_seq is reached because the
> +	 * ringbuffer is wrapping too fast, just start filling the buffer
> +	 * from there.
> +	 */

It might be that I do not understand English well. But "start filling
the buffer from there" sounds like we start filling the buffer from
"newest_seq".

What about the following?

	/*
	 * Move first record forward until length fits into the buffer.
	 * Ignore newest messages that were not counted in the above
	 * cycle. Messages might appear and get lost in the meantime.
	 * This is the best effort that prevents an infinite loop.
	 */
	newest_seq = seq;
>  	prb_for_each_info(clr_seq, prb, seq, &info, &line_count) {
> -		if (len <= size)
> +		if (len <= size || info.seq > newest_seq)
>  			break;
>  		len -= get_record_print_text_size(&info, line_count, true, time);
>  	}
> @@ -1568,8 +1529,11 @@ int do_syslog(int type, char __user *buf, int len, int source)
>  			return 0;
>  		if (!access_ok(buf, len))
>  			return -EFAULT;
> +		spin_lock_irq(&syslog_lock);
> +		seq = syslog_seq;
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&syslog_lock);

It would deserve a comment that the locking is needed to guarantee
atomicity of the operation.

>  		error = wait_event_interruptible(log_wait,
> -				prb_read_valid(prb, syslog_seq, NULL));
> +				prb_read_valid(prb, seq, NULL));
>  		if (error)
>  			return error;
>  		error = syslog_print(buf, len);
> @@ -2809,11 +2856,7 @@ void register_console(struct console *newcon)
>  		nr_ext_console_drivers++;
>  
>  	if (newcon->flags & CON_PRINTBUFFER) {
> -		/*
> -		 * console_unlock(); will print out the buffered messages
> -		 * for us.
> -		 */
> -		logbuf_lock_irqsave(flags);
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&syslog_lock, flags);

We should take the lock only around assigning syslog_seq. And add a
comment that it guarantees atomic update.

>  		/*
>  		 * We're about to replay the log buffer.  Only do this to the
>  		 * just-registered console to avoid excessive message spam to
> @@ -2826,7 +2869,7 @@ void register_console(struct console *newcon)
>  		exclusive_console = newcon;
>  		exclusive_console_stop_seq = console_seq;
>  		console_seq = syslog_seq;
> -		logbuf_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&syslog_lock, flags);
>  	}
>  	console_unlock();
>  	console_sysfs_notify();

Best Regards,
Petr