linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf

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: <20110610093354.GH27280@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:33:54 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
	Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Some notes:
> 
> Stupid thing doesn't explain the magical locking though :( I'm 
> 99.9% sure that putting an up() inside a spinlock_irq()ed region 
> was deliberate.

My guess would be it's done so that pending irqs that have queued up 
during our current printk-ing activities do not hit us with the 
console still locked.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/