From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: some lock annotations for user copy paths
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:17:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080910151725.GD18644@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1221058864.30429.291.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 05:01:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 16:48 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > @@ -3016,3 +3016,18 @@ void print_vma_addr(char *prefix, unsign
> > }
> > up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> > }
> > +
> > +void might_fault(void)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * it would be nicer only to annotatea paths which are not under
> > + * pagefault_disable, however that requires a larger audit and
> > + * providing helpers like get_user_atomic.
> > + */
> > + if (!in_atomic()) {
> > + might_sleep();
> > + if (current->mm)
> > + might_lock_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(might_fault);
>
> >From the nitpick squad :-), I prefer the form:
>
> void might_fault(void)
> {
> if (in_atomic())
> return;
>
> might_sleep();
>
> if (!current->mm)
> might_lock_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> }
>
>
> Due to it being one nesting level less.
Well... yeah. I find it doesn't matter unless the function is complex or
nesting level high in absolute terms ;)
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/kernel.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/kernel.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/kernel.h
> > @@ -140,6 +140,15 @@ extern int _cond_resched(void);
> > (__x < 0) ? -__x : __x; \
> > })
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +void might_fault(void);
> > +#else
> > +static inline void might_fault(void)
> > +{
> > + might_sleep();
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > extern struct atomic_notifier_head panic_notifier_list;
> > extern long (*panic_blink)(long time);
> > NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
>
> This forgets that in_atomic() again - possibly triggering might_sleep()
> where not appropriate.
OK, drat... maybe we'll just noop that path and lose a couple of
might_sleep() points -- testing and developing should be done mostly
under lockdep anyway.
> I'm not sure its worth it to out-of-line the thing though (its only big
> on debug builds), and CONFIG_LOCKDEP is the wrong CONFIG_* variable, I
> think CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING would be the appropriate one.
It is so that we don't need to pull sched.h and lockdep.h into those low
level user access functions.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-10 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-10 11:37 Nick Piggin
2008-09-10 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-09-10 11:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-10 11:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-10 12:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-10 12:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-10 15:12 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-10 14:48 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-10 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-09-10 15:17 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-09-10 15:26 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-11 8:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-11 10:43 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-12 9:24 ` [PATCH] sysfs: fix deadlock Ingo Molnar
2008-09-14 22:02 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-15 9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-09-14 7:39 ` [lockdep] possible circular locking, between &mm->mmap_sem and &dev->ev_mutex Ingo Molnar
2008-09-14 7:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-14 8:06 ` [patch] mm: fix locking, inotify_read's ev_mutex vs do_page_fault's mmap_sem Ingo Molnar
2008-09-14 22:12 ` [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex Nick Piggin
2008-09-17 20:14 ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-17 20:46 ` Matt Mackall
2008-09-18 11:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-18 19:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-09-18 21:11 ` Matt Mackall
2008-09-20 2:18 ` Dave Hansen
2008-09-20 16:12 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-22 15:14 ` Dave Hansen
2008-09-22 14:54 ` David Howells
2008-09-23 5:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-09-24 19:29 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-24 19:47 ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-24 18:18 ` David Howells
2008-09-24 18:29 ` Matt Mackall
2008-09-24 19:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-24 19:59 ` David Howells
2008-09-24 23:43 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-24 18:56 ` David Howells
2008-09-24 19:11 ` Matt Mackall
2008-09-24 19:26 ` David Howells
2008-09-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-14 21:36 ` [lockdep] possible circular locking, between &mm->mmap_sem and &dev->ev_mutex Nick Piggin
2008-09-10 14:30 ` [patch] x86: some lock annotations for user copy paths Nick Piggin
2008-09-10 14:31 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080910151725.GD18644@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome