Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753352AbZAaFuv (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:50:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751216AbZAaFul (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:50:41 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53740 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751142AbZAaFuj (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:50:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:33 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Andi Kleen Cc: roger.larsson@e-gatan.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, rml@tech9.net, pavel@ucw.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place Message-Id: <20090130214933.1b91ea3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090131055508.GD18453@one.firstfloor.org> References: <200901280010.37633.roger.larsson@e-gatan.se> <87pri7k4id.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090130160316.7e53ef99.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090131055508.GD18453@one.firstfloor.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1328 Lines: 37 On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:55:08 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > > There's a bit of a problem here. If someone accidentally uses > > gfp_any() inside a spinlock, it will do a sleeping allocation on > > non-preempt kernels and will do an atomic allocation on preemptible > > kernels, so we won't get to see the warning which would allow us to fix > > the bug. > > Yes exporting the function to drivers is dangerous I agree because > it's easy to abuse. > > > Would using irq_count() work? If so, that would fix this up. > > There's nothing that works reliably to detect spinlocks on non > preempt kernels. Hang on. You said That's typically for softirq vs non softirq, which is important for the network stack. that's what in_softirq() does. Now, if networking is indeed using in_atomic() to detect are-we-inside-a-spinlock then networking is buggy. If networking is _not_ doing that then we can safely switch it to in_sortirq() or in_interrupt(). And this would reenable the bug detection which networking's use of in_atomic() accidentally suppressed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/