lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 09:19:46 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com> Cc: "yang.s@...baba-inc.com" <yang.s@...baba-inc.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr() [CC Peter] On Fri 03-11-17 20:09:49, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Also, checkpatch says > > > > WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code > > #43: FILE: mm/memory.c:4491: > > + if (in_atomic()) > > > > I don't recall why we did that, but perhaps this should be revisited? > > Is the comment above in_atomic() still up-to-date? From <linux/preempt.h>: > > /* > * Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot > * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about > * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Thus it should not be > * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible. > * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code. > */ > #define in_atomic() (preempt_count() != 0) I can still see preempt_disable NOOP for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT kernels which makes me think this is still a valid comment. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists