[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150820230845.GF3161@worktop.event.rightround.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:08:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and crash_kexec()
called directly
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:45:43PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> + int old_cpu, this_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> + * `old_cpu == -1' means we are the first comer and crash_kexec()
> + * was called without entering panic().
> + * `old_cpu == this_cpu' means crash_kexec() was called from panic().
> + */
> + this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> + old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
> + if (old_cpu != -1 && old_cpu != this_cpu)
> + return;
This allows recursive calling of crash_kexec(), the Changelog did not
mention that. Is this really required?
> +
> /* Take the kexec_mutex here to prevent sys_kexec_load
> * running on one cpu from replacing the crash kernel
> * we are using after a panic on a different cpu.
--
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