On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves are disabled
> too, it just means interrupts are disabled and no *new* softirq can be
> queued. Consider the following situation:
>
> I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and honour that.
> What you are showing here, that BH's can run via local_bh_enable()
> even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().
I'd disagree.
I do agree that we should obviously not run bottom halves with interrupts
disabled, but I think the _real_ bug is doing "local_bh_enable()" in the
first place. It's a nesting bug: you must nest the "stronger" lock inside
the weaker one, which means that the following is right:
local_bh_disable()
..
local_irq_disable()
...
local_irq_enable()
..
local_bh_enable()
and this is WRONG:
local_irq_disable() (or spinlock)
..
local_bh_disable()
..
local_bh_enable() !BUG BUG BUG!
..
local_irq_enable()
So the bug is, in my opinion, not in BK handling, but in the caller.
I missed the start of this thread, so I don't know how hard this is to
fix. But if you have a buggy sequence, the _simple_ fix may be to do
somehting like this:
+++ local_bh_disable()
local_irq_disable() (or spinlock)
..
local_bh_disable()
..
local_bh_enable() ! now it's a no-op and no longer a bug
..
local_irq_enable()
+++ local_bh_enable()
What's the code sequence?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:28 EST