Re: [PATCH 2/3] netpoll: netconsole

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:33:35PM -0700, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> > The netconsole problem is only if the net driver calls printk() with
> > its spinlock held (but when not called from netconsole).  Then printk()
> > won't know that it's unsafe to re-enter the network driver.
> 
> BTW, this isn't neccesarily a netconsole-only thing.  For instance, has
> anyone ever audited all of the serial and lp drivers to make sure that
> nothing they call can call printk() while holding a lock?  This sounds
> fairly serious - we could have any number of simple error cases that would
> cause a deadlock with the right "console=" setting.

I have a spinlock debugging patch somewhere that builds a list of
locks held by each process. It could easily be extended to do
detecting of recursive locking.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/