Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 18:53:32 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <jlelli@redhat.com>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic, kexec: Don't mutex_trylock() in __crash_kexec()
Message-ID: <YqyxjDz4fB3LuRgJ@linutronix.de>
References: <20220616123709.347053-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <YqyZ/Uf14qkYtMDX@linutronix.de>
 <xhsmha6ab6zm3.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xhsmha6ab6zm3.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-06-17 17:09:24 [+0100], Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Those were pretty much my thoughts. I *think* panic() can be re-entrant on
> the same CPU if the first entry was from NMI, but that still requires being
> able to schedule a thread that panics which isn't a given after getting
> that panic NMI. So for now actually doing the kexec in NMI (or IRQ) context
> seems to be the less hazardous route. 

most likely. Just get rid of the mutex and we should be good to go ;)

Sebastian