[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5475F218.4050207@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:30:32 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when
atomic
Am 26.11.2014 um 16:17 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:05:04AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> What's the path you are trying to debug?
>>
>> Well, we had a problem where we held a spin_lock and called
>> copy_(from|to)_user(). We experienced very random deadlocks that took some guy
>> almost a week to debug. The simple might_sleep() check would have showed this
>> error immediately.
>
> This must have been a very old kernel.
> A modern kernel will return an error from copy_to_user.
I disagree. copy_to_user will not return while holding a spinlock, because it does not know! How should it?
See: spin_lock will call preempt_disable, but thats a no-op for a non-preempt kernel. So the mere fact that we hold a spin_lock is not known by any user access function. (or others). No?
Christian
--
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