Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 May 2015 13:53:43 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] context_tracking: Protect against recursion |
| |
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:58:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @@ -75,6 +94,11 @@ void context_tracking_enter(enum ctx_state state) > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!current->mm); > > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > + if (!context_tracking_recursion_enter()) { > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > if ( __this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) != state) { > > if (__this_cpu_read(context_tracking.active)) { > > /* > > @@ -105,6 +129,7 @@ void context_tracking_enter(enum ctx_state state) > > */ > > __this_cpu_write(context_tracking.state, state); > > } > > + context_tracking_recursion_exit(); > > > local_irq_restore(flags); > > } > > So why not add an 'out_irq_restore:' label and use goto instead of > duplicating the return path in the recursion check?
Ah yeah. Sometimes people prefer that we just repeat the rollback code if it's only one line. But I'm fine with the label as well.
> > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(context_tracking_enter); > > @@ -139,6 +164,10 @@ void context_tracking_exit(enum ctx_state state) > > return; > > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > + if (!context_tracking_recursion_enter()) { > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > + return; > > Ditto. > > No need to resend, I fixed this up in the patch. > > Thanks, > > Ingo
Ah thanks a lot Ingo!
| |