Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934461Ab3JPNOk (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:14:40 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:63885 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934157Ab3JPNOj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:14:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:14:37 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Peter Zijlstra , "x86@kernel.org" , "Wang, Xiaoming" , "Li, Zhuangzhi" , "Liu, Chuansheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove WARN_ON(in_nmi()) from vmalloc_fault Message-ID: <20131016091437.146cb9d4@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20131016130856.GE12773@localhost.localdomain> References: <20131015163906.342d8ffa@gandalf.local.home> <20131016114036.GB12773@localhost.localdomain> <20131016084518.44eaf61a@gandalf.local.home> <20131016130856.GE12773@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1786 Lines: 47 On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:08:57 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Faults can call rcu_user_exit() / rcu_user_enter(). This is not supposed to happen > between rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit(). rdtp->dynticks would be incremented in the > wrong way. > > Ah but we have an in_interrupt() check in context_tracking_user_enter() that protects > us against that. I will say that we should probably warn if it's any fault other than a vmalloc fault. A vmalloc fault should only happen in kernel space, and should not be happening from user code. > > > > > > > > > So I hope we can think about something else for the long term. > > > > I still don't understand what's wrong with it. As long as the faulting > > code does not grab any locks there shouldn't be anything wrong with > > faulting in NMI. For vmalloc, it is just updating page tables. > > NMI code is written with the idea that it can't be interrupted. May be that > paranoia (again), you know. And I can't point you any problem in practice. > I just think that allowing such a thing is asking for troubles. The WARN_ON() that I removed is from vmalloc fault. I don't see an issue with NMIs faulting via vmalloc. For any other page fault, sure, I would be concerned about it. But what's wrong with an NMI running module code? > > But I'm ok with your patch, it fixes a real bug and as long as we don't have > a better solution, we should keep that. > > BTW, does faulting in NMIs re-enable NMIs? Yes, but we now have code to handle that :-) -- Steve -- 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/