[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVtnCONK03qssTsOA_Fu38LaUWCv2bnVbvdvnBrc5m+AA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:45:35 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/51] x86/dumpstack: allow preemption in
show_stack_log_lvl() and dump_trace()
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> show_stack_log_lvl() and dump_trace() are already preemption safe:
>
> - If they're running in interrupt context, preemption is already
> disabled and the percpu irq stack pointers can be trusted.
I agree with the patch, but I have a minor nitpick about the
description. The "irq stack" is an actual thing, but the relevant
stacks here aren't just the irq stack: they're the irq stack, the IST
stacks (on 64-bit), and the NMI stack (on 32-bit). The same logic
applies, though.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists