Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 23:46:41 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Compostella, Jeremy" <jeremy.compostella@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efibc: avoid stack overflow warning
Message-ID: <20160430224641.GQ2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1461952128-2135409-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20160430201449.GL2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <18565207.dPI1UNgYiO@wuerfel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18565207.dPI1UNgYiO@wuerfel>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 835
Lines: 20

On Sun, 01 May, at 12:34:29AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> The sys_restart() system call takes a mutex before calling kernel_restart()
> or kernel_poweroff().
> 
> I've had a closer look now and found that there are a few other
> callers of kernel_restart, so I guess if you restart using sysctl
> at the exact same time as calling /sbin/reboot, things may break.
 
Right. Or if the dm-verify-target driver saw an error.

> It's not something we'd have to worry about in practice, but it does
> make my patch incorrect. Should we come up with a different way to
> do it?

Jeremy proposed a patch to dynamically allocate the memory, which I
think is the correct way to go given that our (reasonable) assumptions
about reboot notifier concurrency are not guaranteed,

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87h9eked24.fsf@jcompost-MOBL1.tl.intel.com