[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501BFF95.8040202@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:43:01 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: fix set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr()
logic
On 08/03/2012 06:29 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
> index afa60db..636402e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
> @@ -166,12 +166,18 @@ static void set_task_blockstep(struct task_struct *task, bool on)
> else
> clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_BLOCKSTEP);
>
> + if (task != current)
> + return;
> +
> + /* ensure irq/preemption can't change debugctl in between */
> + local_irq_disable();
> debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
> if (on)
> debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
> else
> debugctl&= ~DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
> update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
> + local_irq_enable();
wouldn't preempt_disable() be enough?
> }
>
> /*
Sebastian
--
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