Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:28:38 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2 09/11] panic: Add atomic write enforcement to
 oops
Message-ID: <ZQrzhh62pDB5yUyi@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230919230856.661435-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230919230856.661435-10-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230919230856.661435-10-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 01:14:54AM +0206, John Ogness wrote:
> Invoke the atomic write enforcement functions for oops to
> ensure that the information gets out to the consoles.
> 
> Since there is no single general function that calls both
> oops_enter() and oops_exit(), the nesting feature of atomic
> write sections is taken advantage of in order to guarantee
> full coverage between the first oops_enter() and the last
> oops_exit().
> 
> It is important to note that if there are any legacy consoles
> registered, they will be attempting to directly print from the
> printk-caller context, which may jeopardize the reliability of
> the atomic consoles. Optimally there should be no legacy
> consoles registered.

...

> +	if (atomic_read(&oops_cpu) == smp_processor_id()) {
> +		oops_nesting--;
> +		if (oops_nesting == 0) {
> +			atomic_set(&oops_cpu, -1);

Between read and set the variable can change, can't it?
If not, why this variable is atomic then? Or, why it's not a problem?
If the latter is the case, perhaps a comment to explain this?

> +			/* Exit outmost atomic section. */
> +			nbcon_atomic_exit(NBCON_PRIO_EMERGENCY, oops_prev_prio);
> +		}
> +	}
> +	put_cpu();

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko