[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123160823.GC2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:08:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kcsan: Avoid scheduler recursion by using
non-instrumented preempt_{disable,enable}()
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> Let me know what you prefer.
>
> @@ -288,27 +288,19 @@ static u32 kcsan_prandom_u32_max(u32 ep_ro)
> u32 res;
>
> /*
> + * Avoid recursion with scheduler by disabling KCSAN because
> + * preempt_enable_notrace() will still call into scheduler code.
> */
> + kcsan_disable_current();
> preempt_disable_notrace();
> state = raw_cpu_ptr(&kcsan_rand_state);
> res = prandom_u32_state(state);
> + preempt_enable_notrace();
> + kcsan_enable_current_nowarn();
>
> return (u32)(((u64) res * ep_ro) >> 32);
> }
This is much preferred over the other. The thing with _no_resched is that
you can miss a preemption for an unbounded amount of time, which is bad.
The _only_ valid use of _no_resched is when there's a call to schedule()
right after it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists