MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230129060452.7380-1-zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>
 <CAHk-=wjw-rrT59k6VdeLu4qUarQOzicsZPFGAO5J8TKM=oukUw@mail.gmail.com> <Y+EjmnRqpLuBFPX1@bombadil.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y+EjmnRqpLuBFPX1@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:07:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg=6amjgu3UiJX8HcNN9z-jqCRg=P=T4ZytFap2fgAdgw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
        Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        maobibo <maobibo@loongson.cn>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 7:58 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> As for Linus' point about us needing to avoid sleep under RCU +
> spinlock, curious if we can capture *existing* bad users of that with
> Coccinelle SmPL.

Well, we have it dynamically with the "might_sleep()" debugging. But
that obviously only triggers if that is enabled and when those
particular paths are run.

It would be lovely to have a static checker for "sleep under spinlock
or in RCU" (or any of the other situations: preemption disabled either
explicitly or due to get_cpu() and similar).

But I suspect it would be quite hard to do.

               Linus