[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160927073409.GN2794@worktop>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:34:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> I suspect there is a bunch of places that use in_interrupt(), but mean
> the same as KCOV wants -- am I in interrupt? and not am I in interrupt
> context or in normal task context but inside local_bh_disable(). For
> example, why does fput handles closure asynchronously if the task
> called local_bh_disable?
Agreed, but it would mean auditing all in_interrupt()/irq_count() users.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists