Messages in this thread | | | From | Guoyong Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] random: Fix the issue of '_might_sleep' function running in an atomic contex | Date | Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:30:55 +0800 |
| |
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:00:42 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > I'm wondering, though, rather than introducing a second function, maybe > execute_in_process_context() should just gain a `&& !in_atomic()`. > That'd make things a bit simpler.
> However, I'm pretty sure in_atomic() isn't actually a reliable way of > determining that, depending on config. So maybe this should just call > the worker always (if system_wq isn't null).
> Alternatively, any chance the call to add_input_randomness() could be > moved outside the spinlock, or does this not look possible?
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your suggestions.
I am inclined to accept your second suggestion. My reluctance to accept the first is due to the concern that "&& !in_atomic()" could potentially alter the original meaning of the 'execute_in_process_context' interface. Regarding the third suggestion, modifying the logic associated with 'input' is not recommended.
| |