Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:52:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exit: Move preemption fixup up, move blocking
 operations down
Message-ID: <20200416085249.GL20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200305220657.46800-1-jannh@google.com>
 <CAG48ez2qd6r6FfDBHbqpoqKFU1oA64Usx86Ps33wHjCZmxYmbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez2qd6r6FfDBHbqpoqKFU1oA64Usx86Ps33wHjCZmxYmbA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:30:02AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:07 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> > With CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y and CONFIG_CGROUPS=y, kernel oopses in
> > non-preemptible context look untidy; after the main oops, the kernel prints
> > a "sleeping function called from invalid context" report because
> > exit_signals() -> cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin() -> percpu_down_read()
> > can sleep, and that happens before the preempt_count_set(PREEMPT_ENABLED)
> > fixup.
> >
> > It looks like the same thing applies to profile_task_exit() and
> > kcov_task_exit().
> >
> > Fix it by moving the preemption fixup up and the calls to
> > profile_task_exit() and kcov_task_exit() down.
> >
> > Fixes: 1dc0fffc48af ("sched/core: Robustify preemption leak checks")
> > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> > ---
> > As so often, I have no idea which tree this should go through. tip? mm?
> 
> Do the tip folks want to take this, since it's vaguely locking-related
> and the fixed commit also came that way? Or should it go through
> akpm's tree?

I've picked it up, as it seems to be languishing. Thanks!