linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sofirq: consolidate common code in __tasklet_schedule() + _hi

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: <20180216175508.vezb3ll32dxvlz4z@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:55:09 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sofirq: consolidate common code in
 __tasklet_schedule() + _hi_

On 2018-02-16 12:31:09 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:53:03 +0100
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > As for the second invocation (tasklet_action_common() part) is always
> > invoked in BH-disabled context (even if called from ksoftirqd) so you
> > are never preemptible() and can't switch CPUs.
> > So I am going to correct this patch as you suggested but I don't see the
> > reason to do the same in the second one.
> 
> Should we add something like:
> 
> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_atomic());
> 
> ?

Doubt it. this_cpu_ptr() screams already with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT.

> -- Steve

Sebastian