linux-kernel - Re: use of preempt_count instead of in

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080320192719.6a32386e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:27:19 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	video4linux-list@...hat.com,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:36:51 +0100 Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote:

> On Friday 21 March 2008 02:31:44 Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:36:04 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Well, so far so good for LEDs, but what about the other users of in_atomic
> > > > that apparently should not be doing it either?
> > > 
> > > Ho hum.  Lots of cc's added.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > The usual pattern for most of the above is
> > > 
> > > 	if (!in_atomic())
> > > 		do_something_which_might_sleep();
> > > 
> > > problem is, in_atomic() returns false inside spinlock on non-preptible
> > > kernels.  So if anyone calls those functions inside spinlock they will
> > > incorrectly schedule and another task can then come in and try take the
> > > already-held lock.
> > > 
> > > Now, it happens that in_atomic() returns true on non-preemtible kernels
> > > when running in interrupt or softirq context.  But if the above code really
> > > is using in_atomic() to detect am-i-called-from-interrupt and NOT
> > > am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock, they should be using in_irq(),
> > > in_softirq() or in_interrupt().
> > 
> > Presumably most of these places are actually trying to detect 
> > am-i-allowed-to-sleep.  Isn't that what in_atomic() is supposed to do?  
> 
> No, I think there is no such check in the kernel. Most likely for performance
> reasons, as it would require a global flag that is set on each spinlock.

Yup.  non-preemptible kernels avoid the inc/dec of
current_thread_info->preempt_count on spin_lock/spin_unlock

> You simply must always _know_, if you are allowed to sleep or not. This is
> done by defining an API. The call-context is part of any kernel API.

Yup.  99.99% of kernel code manages to do this...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/