All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, yang.shi@windriver.com,
	bigeasy@linutronix.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	paulus@samba.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, hughd@google.com, hocko@suse.cz,
	ralf@linux-mips.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
	linux@arm.linux.org.uk, airlied@linux.ie,
	daniel.vetter@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable()
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:08:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150507110828.GA15284@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <554B43AA.1050605@de.ibm.com>


* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> Am 07.05.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed,  6 May 2015 19:50:24 +0200 David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As Peter asked me to also do the decoupling in one shot, this is
> >>> the new series.
> >>>
> >>> I recently discovered that might_fault() doesn't call might_sleep()
> >>> anymore. Therefore bugs like:
> >>>
> >>>   spin_lock(&lock);
> >>>   rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >>>   spin_unlock(&lock);
> >>>
> >>> would not be detected with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. The code was
> >>> changed to disable false positives for code like:
> >>>
> >>>   pagefault_disable();
> >>>   rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >>>   pagefault_enable();
> >>>
> >>> Whereby the caller wants do deal with failures.
> >>
> >> hm, that was a significant screwup.  I wonder how many bugs we
> >> subsequently added.
> > 
> > So I'm wondering what the motivation was to allow things like:
> > 
> >    pagefault_disable();
> >    rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >    pagefault_enable();
> > 
> > and to declare it a false positive?
> > 
> > AFAICS most uses are indeed atomic:
> > 
> >         pagefault_disable();
> >         ret = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(curval, uaddr, uval, newval);
> >         pagefault_enable();
> > 
> > so why not make it explicitly atomic again?
> 
> Hmm, I am probably misreading that, but it sound as you suggest to go back
> to Davids first proposal
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/25/436
> which makes might_fault to also contain might_sleep. Correct?

Yes, but I'm wondering what I'm missing: is there any deep reason for 
making pagefaults-disabled sections non-atomic?

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, yang.shi@windriver.com,
	bigeasy@linutronix.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	paulus@samba.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, hughd@google.com, hocko@suse.cz,
	ralf@linux-mips.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
	linux@arm.linux.org.uk, airlied@linux.ie,
	daniel.vetter@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable()
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:08:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150507110828.GA15284@gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20150507110828.B3F2zT25cSoZiN-R7hBM68bNn1FHcQ3nTHKkl4fYomA@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <554B43AA.1050605@de.ibm.com>


* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> Am 07.05.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed,  6 May 2015 19:50:24 +0200 David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As Peter asked me to also do the decoupling in one shot, this is
> >>> the new series.
> >>>
> >>> I recently discovered that might_fault() doesn't call might_sleep()
> >>> anymore. Therefore bugs like:
> >>>
> >>>   spin_lock(&lock);
> >>>   rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >>>   spin_unlock(&lock);
> >>>
> >>> would not be detected with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. The code was
> >>> changed to disable false positives for code like:
> >>>
> >>>   pagefault_disable();
> >>>   rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >>>   pagefault_enable();
> >>>
> >>> Whereby the caller wants do deal with failures.
> >>
> >> hm, that was a significant screwup.  I wonder how many bugs we
> >> subsequently added.
> > 
> > So I'm wondering what the motivation was to allow things like:
> > 
> >    pagefault_disable();
> >    rc = copy_to_user(...);
> >    pagefault_enable();
> > 
> > and to declare it a false positive?
> > 
> > AFAICS most uses are indeed atomic:
> > 
> >         pagefault_disable();
> >         ret = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(curval, uaddr, uval, newval);
> >         pagefault_enable();
> > 
> > so why not make it explicitly atomic again?
> 
> Hmm, I am probably misreading that, but it sound as you suggest to go back
> to Davids first proposal
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/25/436
> which makes might_fault to also contain might_sleep. Correct?

Yes, but I'm wondering what I'm missing: is there any deep reason for 
making pagefaults-disabled sections non-atomic?

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-07 11:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-06 17:50 [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable() David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 01/15] uaccess: count pagefault_disable() levels in pagefault_disabled David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 10:22   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 10:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 10:50     ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 10:50       ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 10:50       ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:12       ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:12         ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:23         ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:23           ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:25           ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 11:25             ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 11:30             ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:30               ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:42           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:42             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:40         ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:40           ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:48           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:48             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:51           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:51             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 12:14             ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 12:14               ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 12:27               ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 12:27                 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 12:32               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 12:32                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 15:45             ` [PATCH draft] mm: use pagefault_disable() to check for disabled pagefaults in the handler David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 15:45               ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07 11:12       ` [PATCH RFC 01/15] uaccess: count pagefault_disable() levels in pagefault_disabled Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 11:12         ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 02/15] mm, uaccess: trigger might_sleep() in might_fault() with disabled pagefaults David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 03/15] uaccess: clarify that uaccess may only sleep if pagefaults are enabled David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 04/15] mm: explicitly disable/enable preemption in kmap_atomic_* David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 05/15] mips: kmap_coherent relies on disabled preemption David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 06/15] mm: use pagefault_disabled() to check for disabled pagefaults David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 07/15] drm/i915: " David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 08/15] futex: UP futex_atomic_op_inuser() relies on disabled preemption David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 09/15] futex: UP futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() " David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 10/15] arm/futex: " David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 11/15] arm/futex: UP futex_atomic_op_inuser() " David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 12/15] futex: clarify that preemption doesn't have to be disabled David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 13/15] powerpc: enable_kernel_altivec() requires disabled preemption David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07  0:21   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2015-05-07  0:21     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 14/15] mips: properly lock access to the fpu David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 15/15] uaccess: decouple preemption from the pagefault logic David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 17:50   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-06 22:01 ` [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable() Andrew Morton
2015-05-06 22:01   ` Andrew Morton
2015-05-07  6:23   ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07  6:23     ` David Hildenbrand
2015-05-07  9:48   ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07  9:48     ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 10:51     ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-05-07 10:51       ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-05-07 11:08       ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-05-07 11:08         ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 11:40         ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-07 11:40           ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150507110828.GA15284@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=hocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yang.shi@windriver.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.