lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: improve current->(hard|soft)irqs_enabled synchronisation with actual irq state
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:22:33PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from peterz@infradead.org's message of August 12, 2020 8:35 pm:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:18:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> Excerpts from peterz@infradead.org's message of August 7, 2020 9:11 pm:
> >> >
> >> > What's wrong with something like this?
> >> >
> >> > AFAICT there's no reason to actually try and add IRQ tracing here, it's
> >> > just a hand full of instructions at the most.
> >>
> >> Because we may want to use that in other places as well, so it would
> >> be nice to have tracing.
> >>
> >> Hmm... also, I thought NMI context was free to call local_irq_save/restore
> >> anyway so the bug would still be there in those cases?
> >
> > NMI code has in_nmi() true, in which case the IRQ tracing is disabled
> > (except for x86 which has CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_NMI).
> >
>
> That doesn't help. It doesn't fix the lockdep irq state going out of
> synch with the actual irq state. The code which triggered this with the
> special powerpc irq disable has in_nmi() true as well.

Urgh, you're talking about using lockdep_assert_irqs*() from NMI
context?

If not, I'm afraid I might've lost the plot a little on what exact
failure case we're talking about.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-18 17:43    [W:0.091 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site