lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] printk/nmi: avoid direct printk()-s from __printk_nmi_flush()
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:44:41 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:

> On (08/30/16 15:03), Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > __printk_nmi_flush() can be called from nmi_panic(), therefore it has to
> > > test whether it's executed in NMI context and thus must route the messages
> > > through deferred printk() or via direct printk().
> >
> > Why? What misbehaviour does the current code cause?
>
> the reasoning behind the `if in_nmi()' in print_nmi_seq_line()
>
> if (in_nmi())
> printk_deferred("%.*s", (end - start) + 1, buf);
> else
> printk("%.*s", (end - start) + 1, buf);
>
> was as follows (per Petr's commit message)

OK, thanks, I altered the changelog thusly and scheduled the patch for 4.8:

--- txt/printk-nmi-avoid-direct-printk-s-from-__printk_nmi_flush.txt
+++ txt/printk-nmi-avoid-direct-printk-s-from-__printk_nmi_flush.txt
@@ -3,8 +3,13 @@

__printk_nmi_flush() can be called from nmi_panic(), therefore it has to
test whether it's executed in NMI context and thus must route the messages
-through deferred printk() or via direct printk(). Except for two places
-where __printk_nmi_flush() does unconditional direct printk() calls:
+through deferred printk() or via direct printk(). This is to avoid
+potential deadlocks, as described in cf9b1106c81c45cde ("printk/nmi: flush
+NMI messages on the system panic").
+
+However there remain two places where __printk_nmi_flush() does
+unconditional direct printk() calls:
+
- pr_err("printk_nmi_flush: internal error ...")
- pr_cont("\n")

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:0.073 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site