[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191017074730.GW2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:47:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kcsan: Add Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer
infrastructure
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:34:05PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 20:44, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * Disable interrupts & preemptions, to ignore races due to accesses in
> > > + * threads running on the same CPU.
> > > + */
> > > + local_irq_save(irq_flags);
> > > + preempt_disable();
> >
> > Is there a point to that preempt_disable() here?
>
> We want to avoid being preempted while the watchpoint is set up;
> otherwise, we would report data-races for CPU-local data, which is
> incorrect.
Disabling IRQs already very much disables preemption. There is
absolutely no point in doing preempt_disable() when the whole section
already runs with IRQs disabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists