[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161125151724.GO3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:17:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv4 6/6] printk: remove zap_locks() function
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:01:13PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-10-28 00:49:33, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > 2) Since commit cf9b1106c81c ("printk/nmi: flush NMI messages on the
> > system panic") panic attempts to zap the `logbuf_lock' spin_lock to
> > successfully flush nmi messages to `logbuf'.
>
> Note that the same code is newly used to flush also the printk_safe
> per-CPU buffers. It means that logbuf_lock is zapped also when
> flushing these new buffers.
>
Note that (raw_)spin_lock_init() as done here and in
printk_nmi_flush_on_panic() can wreck the lock state and doesn't ensure
a subsequent spin_lock() of said lock will actually work.
The very best solution is to simply ignore the lock in panic situations
rather than trying to wreck it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists