linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context on 3.10.10-rt7

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]

Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:49:34 +0200
From:	Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner@...bingen.mpg.de>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner.de@...il.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
 on 3.10.10-rt7

On 10/11/2013 03:30 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 02:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0200
>> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>>> * Mario Kleiner | 2013-09-26 18:16:47 [+0200]:
>>>
>>>> Good! I will do that. Thanks for clarifying the irq and constraints
>>>> on raw locks in the other thread.
>>>
>>> Are there any suggestions for "now"?  preempt_disable_nort() like Luis
>>> suggesed?
>>>
>>
>> The preempt_disable_nort() is rather pointless, because the
>> preempt_disable() was added specifically for -rt. When PREEMPT_RT is
>> not enabled, preemption is disabled there already by the previous calls
>> to spin_lock().
>
> Either way. Then I remove the preempt_enable/disable call. Any
> objections?
>

Good with me. I'm currently working on a replacement.
-mario

>> -- Steve
>>
> 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/