Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_disable()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed,  6 May 2015 19:50:24 +0200 David Hildenbrand <dahi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/