Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:51:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
cc: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>, Catalin.Marinas@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace
 breakpoint
In-Reply-To: <20151221104818.GF23092@arm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512211749180.28591@nanos>
References: <1450225088-2456-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <20151216111316.GD4308@arm.com> <5671CD5B.9030907@linaro.org> <20151221104818.GF23092@arm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 864
Lines: 30

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> +	siginfo_t info = {
> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> +		.si_errno	= 0,
> +		.si_code	= si_code,
> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> +	};
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> +		return;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();

That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.

Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
being preempted or even migrated?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/