Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic

[David Hildenbrand]

> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:03:01AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Code like
> > > 	spin_lock(&lock);
> > > 	if (copy_to_user(...))
> > > 		rc = ...
> > > 	spin_unlock(&lock);
> > > really *should* generate warnings like it did before.
> > > 
> > > And *only* code like
> > > 	spin_lock(&lock);
> > 
> > Is only code like this valid or also with the spin_lock() dropped?
> > (e.g. the access in patch1 if I remember correctly)
> > 
> > So should page_fault_disable() increment the pagefault counter and the preempt
> > counter or only the first one?
> 
> Given that a sequence like
> 
> 	page_fault_disable();
>  	if (copy_to_user(...))
>  		rc = ...
>  	page_fault_enable();
> 
> is correct code right now I think page_fault_disable() should increase both.
> No need for surprising semantic changes.
> 
> > So we would have pagefault code rely on:
> > 
> > in_disabled_pagefault() ( pagefault_disabled() ... whatever ) instead of
> > in_atomic().
> 
> No, let's be more defensive: the page fault handler should do nothing if
> in_atomic() just like now. But it could have a quick check and emit a one
> time warning if page faults aren't disabled in addition.
> That might help debugging but keeps the system more likely alive.

Sounds sane if we increase both counters!

> 
> might_fault() however should call might_sleep() if page faults aren't
> disabled, but that's what you proposed anyway I think.

Jap, sounds good to me. Will see if I can come up with something.

Thanks!

--
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/