linux-kernel - Re: Traceback with CONFIG_REGMAP_KUNIT=y+CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC

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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:25:42 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Traceback with CONFIG_REGMAP_KUNIT=y+CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y

On 7/20/23 08:07, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 08:03:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 7/20/23 07:31, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> They're both independently fine, but I wouldn't expect anything that's
>>> running in atomic context to be actually using dynamic allocations.
> 
>> Which one do you prefer ? As I mentioned in my second patch, there are
>> two drivers which use fast_io together with REGCACHE_RBTREE and thus
>> are likely affected by this problem. Dan's solution would cover that,
>> while my current RFC patch would likely cause those drivers to fail.
>> Plus, of course, they could get stuck if they actually end up trying to
>> sleep while allocating memory.
> 
> Like I say I don't think it's an either/or - we can do both
> independently, they both make sense standalone and don't conflict with
> each other.

I guess I am missing something. I have not tried it, but wouldn't my patches
be unnecessary if Dan's patch is applied ?

Thanks,
Guenter