[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022163247.5bb93ab3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:32:47 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+53f8ce8bbc07924b6417@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: BUG: using __this_cpu_read() in preemptible code in
trace_hardirqs_on
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:30:28 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Subject: lockdep: Fix preemption WARN for spurious IRQ-enable
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Thu Oct 22 12:23:02 CEST 2020
>
> It is valid (albeit uncommon) to call local_irq_enable() without first
> having called local_irq_disable(). In this case we enter
> lockdep_hardirqs_on*() with IRQs enabled and trip a preemption warning
> for using __this_cpu_read().
>
> Use this_cpu_read() instead to avoid the warning.
I was wondering why you were using __this_cpu_read() in the first place.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
>
> Fixes: 4d004099a6 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
> Reported-by: syzbot+53f8ce8bbc07924b6417@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists