From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM, ARM64, LONGARCH: Delay HW BP notification to task_work()
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:20:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260814092049.EHIf1eeX@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260814090304.558901F0155A@smtp.kernel.org>
On 2026-08-14 09:03:03 [+0000], sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> > + if (xchg_relaxed(&bp->hw.arch_hw_notif_busy, 1) ||
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(task_work_add(current, &bp->hw.arch_hw_notif, TWA_RESUME)))
> [Severity: High]
> Will using TWA_RESUME here cause a hang if a hardware watchpoint is triggered
> during a blocking syscall like futex() or read()?
>
> When a blocking syscall accesses watched memory (e.g., via get_user()), the
> watchpoint synchronously triggers and queues the SIGTRAP task work via
> task_work_add(). Since TWA_RESUME only sets TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, and
> signal_pending() ignores TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, the syscall wait loop will not
> abort.
>
> Does this need to use TWA_SIGNAL instead so that TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL is set and
> the interruptible sleep correctly aborts to deliver the pending task work?
Well, this only means that the signal will be delivered once the syscall
handling is complete. I don't see a reason why the syscall should be
interrupted just to deliver the signal right away. The logic should not
be affected by delivering the signal immediately.
> > + put_event(bp);
> > +}
> > +#endif
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 8:51 [PATCH v2] ARM, ARM64, LONGARCH: Delay HW BP notification to task_work() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-14 9:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-14 9:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
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=20260814092049.EHIf1eeX@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox