Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:20:26 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] module: Prevent recursion bug caused by module RCU check |
| |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:09:05 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:53:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Also, would it not be better to fix WARN_ON_ONCE() instead? > > > > Clearly I'm an idiot and should stay away from the computer...
Hehe,
> > --- > include/asm-generic/bug.h | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h > index 630dd2372238..d0972fc8433f 100644 > --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h > +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h > @@ -110,9 +110,10 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line); > static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \ > int __ret_warn_once = !!(condition); \ > \ > - if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once)) \ > - if (WARN_ON(!__warned)) \ > - __warned = true; \ > + if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once && !__warned)) { \ > + __warned = true; \ > + WARN_ON(1); \ > + } \ > unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \ > })
I thought about it too, but was too busy to think harder about it. I may have made the same mistakes as you.
-- Steve
> > @@ -120,9 +121,10 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line); > static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \ > int __ret_warn_once = !!(condition); \ > \ > - if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once)) \ > - if (WARN(!__warned, format)) \ > - __warned = true; \ > + if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once && !__warned)) { \ > + __warned = true; \ > + WARN(1, format); \ > + } \ > unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \ > }) >
| |