lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable()

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 2015 19:50:24 +0200 David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > As Peter asked me to also do the decoupling in one shot, this is
> > the new series.
> >
> > I recently discovered that might_fault() doesn't call might_sleep()
> > anymore. Therefore bugs like:
> >
> > spin_lock(&lock);
> > rc = copy_to_user(...);
> > spin_unlock(&lock);
> >
> > would not be detected with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. The code was
> > changed to disable false positives for code like:
> >
> > pagefault_disable();
> > rc = copy_to_user(...);
> > pagefault_enable();
> >
> > Whereby the caller wants do deal with failures.
>
> hm, that was a significant screwup. I wonder how many bugs we
> subsequently added.

So I'm wondering what the motivation was to allow things like:

pagefault_disable();
rc = copy_to_user(...);
pagefault_enable();

and to declare it a false positive?

AFAICS most uses are indeed atomic:

pagefault_disable();
ret = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(curval, uaddr, uval, newval);
pagefault_enable();

so why not make it explicitly atomic again?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-07 12:41    [W:0.176 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site