linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma

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: <20171106100558.GD3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:05:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
        "yang.s@...baba-inc.com" <yang.s@...baba-inc.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr()

On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 09:19:46AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Peter]
> 
> On Fri 03-11-17 20:09:49, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Also, checkpatch says
> > > 
> > > WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code
> > > #43: FILE: mm/memory.c:4491:
> > > +       if (in_atomic())
> > > 
> > > I don't recall why we did that, but perhaps this should be revisited?
> > 
> > Is the comment above in_atomic() still up-to-date? From <linux/preempt.h>:
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
> >  * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
> >  * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels.  Thus it should not be
> >  * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
> >  * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
> >  */
> > #define in_atomic()	(preempt_count() != 0)
> 
> I can still see preempt_disable NOOP for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT kernels
> which makes me think this is still a valid comment.

Yes the comment is very much accurate.