From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755008AbcI0K7W (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 27 Sep 2016 06:59:22 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:34905 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753979AbcI0K7O (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 27 Sep 2016 06:59:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:59:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt
Message-ID: <20160927105905.GI5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1474642273-112248-1-git-send-email-andreyknvl@google.com>
 <20160926163226.35cc76eb1a06083440cbb86d@linux-foundation.org>
 <CACT4Y+ZdxBwExjgxWqF8EwYR9AsmcVo-z7TypjiG9MMHedPSsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160927073409.GN2794@worktop>
 <CACT4Y+b3=w1NPGzCg4Zaas9KcLpSmJxYEMGKG_v+2rrEop+1Gw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b3=w1NPGzCg4Zaas9KcLpSmJxYEMGKG_v+2rrEop+1Gw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect there is a bunch of places that use in_interrupt(), but mean
> >> the same as KCOV wants -- am I in interrupt? and not am I in interrupt
> >> context or in normal task context but inside local_bh_disable(). For
> >> example, why does fput handles closure asynchronously if the task
> >> called local_bh_disable?
> >
> > Agreed, but it would mean auditing all in_interrupt()/irq_count() users.
> 
> 
> I don't think this means auditing all users. We are not making things
> worse by introduction of a new predicate.
> It would be nice to look at some uses in core code, but the only place
> with observed harm is KCOV.
> 
> Any naming suggestions? Other than really_in_interrupt or
> in_interrupt_and_not_in_bh_disabled?

Hence the suggestion to audit and fix instead of making a bigger mess :/