lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 6/11] s390: in_interrupt vs. in_atomic.
From
Date
> > The condition for no context in do_exception checks for hard and
> > soft interrupts by using in_interrupt() but not for preemption.
> > This is bad for the users of __copy_from/to_user_inatomic because
> > the fault handler might call schedule although the preemption
> > count is != 0. Use in_atomic() instead in_interrupt().
> >
>
> hm. Under what circumstances do you expect this test to trigger?

e.g. by the following:

static inline int get_futex_value_locked(int *dest, int __user *from)
{
int ret;
inc_preempt_count();
ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic(dest, from, sizeof(int));
dec_preempt_count();
preempt_check_resched();

return ret ? -EFAULT : 0;
}
in_interrupt only checks for HARDIRQ_MASK and SOFTIRQ_MASK but not
for the preemption counter. This is not a theory, we had a bug report
concerning a "bad: scheduling while atomic!" warning.

blue skies,
Martin

Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-03 09:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans