Re: [PATCH next v3 01/15] um: synchronize kmsg_dumper

From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Meyer <thomas@m3y3r.de>,
	Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v3 01/15] um: synchronize kmsg_dumper
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 11:12:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YD4Pmfb/CTCGsv9g@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y2f6yo7k.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>

On Tue 2021-03-02 09:06:07, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-01, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/kmsg_dump.c b/arch/um/kernel/kmsg_dump.c
> >> > index 6516ef1f8274..4869e2cc787c 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/um/kernel/kmsg_dump.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/um/kernel/kmsg_dump.c
> >> > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> >> >  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> >  #include <linux/kmsg_dump.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >> >  #include <linux/console.h>
> >> >  #include <linux/string.h>
> >> >  #include <shared/init.h>
> >> > @@ -9,6 +10,7 @@
> >> >  static void kmsg_dumper_stdout(struct kmsg_dumper *dumper,
> >> >  				enum kmsg_dump_reason reason)
> >> >  {
> >> > +	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
> >> >  	static char line[1024];
> >> >  	struct console *con;
> >> >  	size_t len = 0;
> >> > @@ -29,11 +31,16 @@ static void kmsg_dumper_stdout(struct kmsg_dumper *dumper,
> >> >  	if (con)
> >> >  		return;
> >> >  
> >> > +	if (!spin_trylock(&lock))
> >> 
> >> I have almost missed this. It is wrong. The last version correctly
> >> used
> >> 
> >> 	if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&lock, flags))
> >> 
> >> kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC) is called in panic() with interrupts
> >> disabled. We have to store the flags here.
> >
> > Ah, I get always confused with these things. spin_trylock() can
> > actually get called in a context with IRQ disabled. So it is not
> > as wrong as I thought.
> >
> > But still. panic() and kmsg_dump() can be called in IRQ context.
> > So, this function might be called in IRQ context. So, it feels
> > more correct to use the _irqsafe variant here.
> >
> > I know that there is the trylock so it probably does not matter much.
> > Well, the disabled irq might help to serialize the two calls when
> > one is in normal context and the other would happen in IRQ one.
> >
> > As I said, using _irqsafe variant looks better to me.
> 
> For the record, the reason I removed the _irqsave for v3 is because I
> felt like it was misleading, appearing to be necessary when it is not.
> 
> I think anyone could argue both sides.

Yeah, I could imagine myself to have different opinion another day
or year. I am sorry for the noise.

> But it really doesn't matter
> (especially for arch/um). I will use the _irqsave variant for v4. I am
> OK with that.

Please do, if it is easy. You are going to send v4 anyway.

Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um