linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pstore: change mutex locking to spin

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: <4E28C552.8060803@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:33:22 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: change mutex locking to spin_locks

On 07/22/2011 01:57 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> Is it safe to call pstore_mkfile with IRQ disabled?
>>>
>>> pstore_mkfile -> d_alloc_name -> d_alloc -> kmem_cache_alloc(, GFP_KERNEL).
>>
>> Don't know.  But would that mean we would have to put the pstore_mkfile
>> on a workqueue then or something similar?
> 
> That might be a good idea anyway.  In the "oops" case we'd like the file
> to appear in the pstore filesystem if the system stayed healthy despite
> the oops[1]. There isn't any reason why the pstore entry must appear instantly.
> Delaying the creation would avoid running into problems related to the
> oops.

For oops, it may be better to delay writing into something like
workqueue.  But for panic, I think we should write the record to backend
(such as ERST) as soon as possible.  So maybe it is better to write to
backend as soon as possible and delay writing to pstore filesystem.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/