linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu,ftrace: Fix ftrace recursion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201005001856.GT29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:18:56 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, kim.phillips@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu,ftrace: Fix ftrace recursion

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 01:04:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:56:40 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Well, I think we should actually apply both, but the comment needs to be
> > > updated, as it will no longer be outside recursion. And the comment is
> > > wrong now as well, as its only outside recursion protection for the
> > > assist_func(). 
> > > 
> > > But it does prevent it from being always called for perf.
> > > 
> > >  * Make notrace because it can be called by the internal functions of
> > >  * ftrace, and making this notrace removes unnecessary recursion calls.  
> > 
> > Fair enough.  ;-)
> > 
> > If I don't hear otherwise by late today (Tuesday), Pacific Time, I will
> > update the comment and pull it into -rcu.  If you guys have some other
> > route to mainline in mind, you have my Reviewed-by.  Either way, just
> > let me know.
> 
> I'm currently testing the recursion fix and will push that to Linus when
> done. But you can take the comment update through your tree.
> 
> Peter, are you OK if Paul changes your comment to what I suggested?

Hearing no objections, I have queued the patch with the comment updated
as suggested by Steven.  Thank you all!

							Thanx, Paul