Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:22:29 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled. |
| |
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, David S. Miller wrote: > > Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves are disabled > too, it just means interrupts are disabled and no *new* softirq can be > queued. Consider the following situation: > > I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and honour that. > What you are showing here, that BH's can run via local_bh_enable() > even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().
I'd disagree.
I do agree that we should obviously not run bottom halves with interrupts disabled, but I think the _real_ bug is doing "local_bh_enable()" in the first place. It's a nesting bug: you must nest the "stronger" lock inside the weaker one, which means that the following is right:
local_bh_disable() .. local_irq_disable() ... local_irq_enable() .. local_bh_enable()
and this is WRONG:
local_irq_disable() (or spinlock) .. local_bh_disable() .. local_bh_enable() !BUG BUG BUG! .. local_irq_enable()
So the bug is, in my opinion, not in BK handling, but in the caller.
I missed the start of this thread, so I don't know how hard this is to fix. But if you have a buggy sequence, the _simple_ fix may be to do somehting like this:
+++ local_bh_disable() local_irq_disable() (or spinlock) .. local_bh_disable() .. local_bh_enable() ! now it's a no-op and no longer a bug .. local_irq_enable() +++ local_bh_enable()
What's the code sequence?
Linus
- 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/
| |