lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:03:01AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Code like
> > spin_lock(&lock);
> > if (copy_to_user(...))
> > rc = ...
> > spin_unlock(&lock);
> > really *should* generate warnings like it did before.
> >
> > And *only* code like
> > spin_lock(&lock);
>
> Is only code like this valid or also with the spin_lock() dropped?
> (e.g. the access in patch1 if I remember correctly)
>
> So should page_fault_disable() increment the pagefault counter and the preempt
> counter or only the first one?

Given that a sequence like

page_fault_disable();
if (copy_to_user(...))
rc = ...
page_fault_enable();

is correct code right now I think page_fault_disable() should increase both.
No need for surprising semantic changes.

> So we would have pagefault code rely on:
>
> in_disabled_pagefault() ( pagefault_disabled() ... whatever ) instead of
> in_atomic().

No, let's be more defensive: the page fault handler should do nothing if
in_atomic() just like now. But it could have a quick check and emit a one
time warning if page faults aren't disabled in addition.
That might help debugging but keeps the system more likely alive.

might_fault() however should call might_sleep() if page faults aren't
disabled, but that's what you proposed anyway I think.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-27 13:41    [W:1.192 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site