linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in __might

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

Message-ID: <4117061.qmFDOAJpEW@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:15:44 +0100
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        syzbot <syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in __might_resched

On Friday, November 12, 2021 5:27:51 PM CET Marco Elver wrote:

> My guess is that in this case '!preemptible()' could work:
> 
> 	#define preemptible()	(preempt_count() == 0 && !
irqs_disabled())
> 
> But still am not entirely sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco

Oh, I didn't even know that we have that preemptible() macro. 

Instead, I should have known that in_atomic() won't do, since last week I had 
copy-pasted in an email that I sent to someone on the LKML exactly the same 
inline documentation that you have showed now.

Thanks, Marco. At least, this thread was useful to make me recall how these 
macros should be used :)

Regards,

Fabio