lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch, validator] fix proc_subdir_lock related deadlock

* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> > to solve this we must either change files_lock to be softirq-safe too
> > (bleh!), or we must forbid remove_proc_entry() use from softirq
> > contexts. Neither is a happy solution - remove_proc_entry() is used
> > within free_irq(), and who knows how many drivers do free_irq() in
> > softirq/tasklet context ...
>
> free_irq()'s /proc fiddling has always been a pain - we just shouldn't
> be doing filesystem things in irq/bh context.

the second patch i sent is quite straightforward.

> > Andrew, this needs to be resolved before v2.6.16, correct? Steve's patch
> > solves a real bug in the upstream kernel.
>
> It's not a very big bug - I think only Steve hit it, and that with a
> stress-test which was somewhat tuned to hit it.

still ...

> So we can afford to sit on the problem for a while, as long as someone
> is working on a broader /proc-sanity fix. But nobody will do that.
>
> I wonder if we can just punt the unregister_handler_proc/kfree up to a
> keventd callback.

i'd rather do the files_lock change i sent, and perhaps add a
WARN_ON_ONCE() to all known places that do a free_irq() from softirq
context.

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-25 21:23    [W:0.111 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site