linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might

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: <20130519164009.GA2434@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 19 May 2013 19:40:09 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org,
	linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org, microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au,
	linux-am33-list@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:06:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:34 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > Right but we need to keep it working on upstream as well.
> > If I do preempt_enable under a spinlock upstream won't it
> > try to sleep under spinlock?
> 
> No it wont. A spinlock calls preempt_disable implicitly, and a
> preempt_enable() will not schedule unless preempt_count is zero, which
> it wont be under a spinlock.
> 
> If it did, there would be lots of bugs all over the place because this
> is done throughout the kernel (a preempt_enable() under a spinlock).
> 
> In other words, don't ever use preempt_enable_no_resched().
> 
> -- Steve
> 


OK I get it. So let me correct myself. The simple code
that does something like this under a spinlock:
>       preempt_disable
>       pagefault_disable
>       error = copy_to_user
>       pagefault_enable
>       preempt_enable
>
is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning,
as long as error is handled correctly later.
Right?
--
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/