[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YL+uBq8LzXXZsYVf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:51:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: qiang.zhang@...driver.com
Cc: ryabinin.a.a@...il.com, glider@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, andreyknvl@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com, frederic@...nel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq_work: record irq_work_queue() call stack
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:32:02PM +0800, qiang.zhang@...driver.com wrote:
> @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> return false;
>
> + /*record irq_work call stack in order to print it in KASAN reports*/
> + kasan_record_aux_stack(work);
> +
> /* Queue the entry and raise the IPI if needed. */
> preempt_disable();
> __irq_work_queue_local(work);
Thanks for the Cc :/ Also NAK.
I shall go revert this instantly. KASAN is not NMI safe, while
irq_work_queue() is very carefully crafted to be exactly that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists