[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100108182746.GA5606@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:27:48 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Li Yi <yi.li@...log.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ftrace: irqsoff tracer may cause stack overflow
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:22:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 06:18 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Comment needed here:
>
> /*
> * The irqsoff tracer uses atomic_inc_return to prevent recursion.
> * Unfortunately, in this file, atomic_inc_return disables interrupts
> * which causes the recursion the irqsoff trace was trying to prevent.
> *
> * The irqsoff tracer will define __ATOMIC_NEED_RAW_IRQ_SAVE before
> * including this file, which will make the atomic_inc_return use
> * the raw versions of interrupts disabling. This will allow other
> * users of the atomic_inc_return to still have the interrupt
> * disabling be traced, but will prevent the recursion by the
> * irqsoff tracer itself.
> */
>
Yep, that was a first catch, just to ping opinions, it was even
not tested :)
> I wonder if we could just use a per_cpu variable and increment that
> instead. Since the irqsoff tracer only gets called with interrupts
> disabled (and the preemptoff with preemption disabled), a per_cpu
> variable should be protected well.
Doh! I thought about that but feared about preempt_disable recursion.
I didn't realize this code was under such context already.
True, that's indeed a much better idea!
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists