[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yfu9j1VN/YP8cqza@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:33:35 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: defer_console_output: do not assume interrupts
disabled
On 2022-02-03 12:35:15 [+0106], John Ogness wrote:
> With commit 458df9fd4815 ("printk: remove separate printk_sched
> buffers and use printk buf instead") defer_console_output() was
> changed to no longer disable interrupts. However, it used the
> function __this_cpu_or(), which assumes interrupts disabled. That
> also should have been changed to this_cpu_or().
>
> Although defer_console_output() is mostly used when interrupts are
> disabled, this is not always the case. One example is
> get_random_bytes(), which is often called with interrupts enabled.
It is okay for __this_cpu_or() to be invoked with disabled preemption if
that is true for all callers. Disabled interrupts or not is not
important as long as there are no callers in_irq(). I believe that there
are callers in_irq() and therefore this_cpu_or() is correct.
> get_random_bytes()
> warn_unseeded_randomness()
> printk_deferred()
>
> Reported-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists