linux-kernel - Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

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: <20120623174830.GA5617@localhost>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2012 01:48:30 +0800
From:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

> >  static inline int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
> >  {
> >         might_sleep();  /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
> > +       preempt_disable();
> >         return num_online_cpus() <= 1;
> > +       preempt_enable();
> >  }
> 
> Thank you!  I have no idea how a preempt_disable() causes that badness
> to happen, but this commit is not yet critically important, so I will
> drop it.

preempt_enable() becomes dead code because of the return statement?
I wonder why gcc didn't issue a warning (or I failed to catch it)...

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/