Re: [PATCH] Fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible codein print_fatal_signal()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/27, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ed Swierk <eswierk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Take 2:
> >
> > With print-fatal-signals=1 on a kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, sending an
> > unexpected signal to a process causes a BUG: using smp_processor_id() in
> > preemptible code.
> >
> > get_signal_to_deliver() releases the siglock before calling
> > print_fatal_signal(), which calls show_regs(), which calls
> > smp_processor_id(), which is not supposed to be called from a
> > preemptible thread.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ed Swierk <eswierk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> applied to tip/core/urgent, thanks Ed!

Ed, Ingo, but isn't it better to just use raw_smp_processor_id() in
__show_regs() ? This is only debug info, the printed CPU doesn't
have the "exact" meaning.

And, without the comment, it is not easy to see why print_fatal_signal()
disables preeemption before show_regs().

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/