linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] printk: set may_schedule for some of console

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: <20160216144306.GU12548@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:43:06 +0100
From:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...nel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] printk: set may_schedule for some of
 console_trylock callers

On Sat 2016-02-13 03:37:11, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> console_unlock() allows to cond_resched() if its caller has
> set `console_may_schedule' to 1, since
> 'commit 8d91f8b15361 ("printk: do cond_resched() between lines while
> outputting to consoles")'.
> 
> The rules are:
> -- console_lock() always sets `console_may_schedule' to 1
> -- console_trylock() always sets `console_may_schedule' to 0
> 
> However, console_trylock() callers (among them is printk()) do
> not always call printk() from atomic contexts, and some of them
> can cond_resched() in console_unlock(), so console_trylock()
> can set `console_may_schedule' to 1 for such processes.
> 
> For !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT kernels, however, console_trylock()
> always sets `console_may_schedule' to 0.
> 
> It's possible to drop explicit preempt_disable()/preempt_enable()
> in vprintk_emit(), because console_unlock() and console_trylock()
> are now smart enough:
> a) console_unlock() does not cond_resched() when it's unsafe
>   (console_trylock() takes care of that)
> b) console_unlock() does can_use_console() check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>

It looks safe after all.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>

Best Regards,
Petr