linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 6/8] kexec jump: fix for lockdep

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: <1218434994.10800.16.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:09:54 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 6/8] kexec jump: fix for lockdep

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 08:59 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 14:52 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > Replace local_irq_disable() with raw_local_irq_disable() to prevent
> > > lockdep complain.
> > Uhhm, please provide more information - just using raw_* to silence
> > lockdep is generally the wrong thing to do.
> 
> In traditional kexec, the new kernel will replace current one, so the
> irq is simply disabled. But now jumping back from kexeced kernel is
> supported, so the irq should be enabled again.
> 
> The code sequence of irq during kexec jump is as follow:
> 
> local_irq_disable(); /* in kernel_kexec() */
> local_irq_disable(); /* in machine_kexec() */
> local_irq_enable(); /* in kernel_kexec() */
> 
> The disable and enable is not match. Maybe another method is to use
> local_irq_save(), local_irq_restore() pair in machine_kexec(), so the
> disable and enable is matched.

And its the machine kernel's lockdep instance that goes complain?

whichever annotation gets used - and I think I can agree that raw_*
might be approriate there, this should be accompanied with a rather
elaborate changelog and preferably a comment in the code too. Without
such we'll be wondering in the years to come WTH happens here.


--
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/