linux-kernel - Question: Can I call down() in an atomic context?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6b5e1da8-4360-e9da-ad42-a5365fb853fa@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:35:36 +0800
From:   Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, <longman@...hat.com>,
        <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <lenb@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        "xiaoqian9@...wei.com" <xiaoqian9@...wei.com>,
        "wangle6@...wei.com" <wangle6@...wei.com>
Subject: Question: Can I call down() in an atomic context?

might_sleep() is called in kernel/locking/rwsem.c (API: 
down_read/down_write/...)
but not in kernel/locking/semaphore.c (API: down/down_timeout/..).
Was it designed so purposely, or was it missed by mistake?

After I added might_sleep() to kernel/locking/semaphore.c,
an alarm log was occasionally detected in my test environment:

	BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
kernel/locking/semaphore.c:163
	in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 0, name: swapper/8
	...
	Call trace:
	dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3c
	dump_backtrace+0x2c/0x3c
	show_stack+0x24/0x34
	dump_stack+0xb0/0xf0
	___might_sleep+0x130/0x144
	__might_sleep+0x78/0x88
	down_timeout+0x40/0xc8
	acpi_os_wait_semaphore+0x78/0xa0  drivers/acpi/osl.c#L1266
	acpi_ut_acquire_mutex+0x50/0xb4   drivers/acpi/acpica/utmutex.c#L241
	acpi_get_table+0x3c/0xc8          drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxface.c#L318
	acpi_find_last_cache_level+0x7c/0x140  drivers/acpi/pptt.c#L602
	_init_cache_level+0xd0/0xd8    arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c#L64
	flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x138/0x160   kernel/smp.c#L561
	generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x18/0x24
	handle_IPI+0x1d0/0x50c
	gic_handle_irq+0x13c/0x140
	el1_irq+0xcc/0x180
	arch_cpu_idle+0xc0/0x16c
	default_idle_call+0x34/0x38
	cpu_startup_entry+0x2b4/0x358
	secondary_start_kernel+0x1a8/0x1dc

Does this mean that it is necessary to add might_sleep in 
kernel/locking/semaphore.c?


Thanks
Xiaoming Ni