[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8ejz1c9.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:37:10 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
sboyd@...nel.org, corbet@....net, Mark.Rutland@....com,
maz@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, neeraju@...eaurora.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 clocksource 3/5] clocksource: Check per-CPU clock synchronization when marked unstable
On Mon, Apr 12 2021 at 12:57, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:54:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > I will send a new series out later today, Pacific Time.
>>
>> Can you do me a favour and send it standalone and not as yet another
>> reply to this existing thread maze. A trivial lore link to the previous
>> version gives enough context.
>
> Will do!
>
> Of course, it turns out that lockdep also doesn't like waited-on
> smp_call_function_single() invocations from timer handlers,
> so I am currently looking at other options for dealing with that
> potential use-after-free. I am starting to like the looks of "only set
> CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU on statically allocated clocksource structures
> and let KASAN enforce this restriction", but I have not quite given up
> on making it more general.
The simplest point is in the thread under the clocksource_mutex which
prevents anything from vanishing under your feet.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists