Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:46:49 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Yao HongBo <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in console_unlock
Message-ID: <20190218054649.GA26686@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <ebc01f4f-5b1d-4f8a-1d0d-463d5218ee45@huawei.com>
 <20190216072127.GA1945@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20190216073856.GA9979@tigerII.localdomain>
 <71b097a7-03c5-8a65-76fa-24312b452b51@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <71b097a7-03c5-8a65-76fa-24312b452b51@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On (02/16/19 15:59), Yao HongBo wrote:
> > GFP_NOWARN is probably the best option for now. Yes, it, maybe,
> > will not work for fault-injection cases; but printk_safe approach
> > is harder to push for, especially given that printk_safe maybe will
> > not even exist in the future.
> 
> I have tried GFP_NOWARN, but the problem still exists.
> Only print_safe contexts for tty locks can solve the problem.
> My test scenario is falt-injection.

Oh, I see. Yes, fault-injection is special.

I suspect that this patch series can be helpful then
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181016050428.17966-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com/T/#u

but first we need to figure out if printk_safe will
stay in the kernel (this will take some time).

	-ss