linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmevent: Should not grab mutex in the atomic context

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOJsxLEZ6ZHBTKnCBO0bpC0ci6E2F4LZYiQkrExUxWR2dQjqGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:37:16 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Cc:	Leonid Moiseichuk <leonid.moiseichuk@...ia.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vmevent: Should not grab mutex in the atomic context

> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:40:31AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 03:38 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> > vmevent grabs a mutex in the atomic context, and so this pops up:
>> >
>> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:271
>> > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
> [...]
>> > This patch fixes the issue by removing the mutex and making the logic
>> > lock-free.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
>>
>> What guarantees that there's only one thread writing to struct
>> vmevent_attr::value in vmevent_sample() now that the mutex is gone?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Anton Vorontsov
<anton.vorontsov@...aro.org> wrote:
> Well, it is called from the timer function, which has the same guaranties
> as an interrupt handler: it can have only one execution thread (unlike
> bare softirq handler), so we don't need to worry about racing w/
> ourselves?
>
> If you're concerned about several instances of timers accessing the
> same vmevent_watch, I don't really see how it is possible, as we
> allocate vmevent_watch together w/ the timer instance in vmevent_fd(),
> so there is always one timer per vmevent_watch.

Makes sense. A big fat comment on top of vmevent_sample() explaining
all this would be helpful... ;-)

                        Pekka
--
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/