[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+b3=w1NPGzCg4Zaas9KcLpSmJxYEMGKG_v+2rrEop+1Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:50:41 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 9:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
I don't think this means auditing all users. We are not making things
worse by introduction of a new predicate.
It would be nice to look at some uses in core code, but the only place
with observed harm is KCOV.
Any naming suggestions? Other than really_in_interrupt or
in_interrupt_and_not_in_bh_disabled?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists