Keshavamurthy Anil S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > void __kprobes lock_kprobes(void)
> > > {
> > > + unsigned long flags = 0;
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > > spin_lock(&kprobe_lock);
> > > kprobe_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > }
> >
> > what is this change trying to do? If a lock is taken from both process and
> > irq contexts then local IRQs must be disabled for the entire period when the
> > lock is held, not just for a little blip like this. If IRQ-context code is
> > running this function then the code is deadlockable.
>
> In the kprobe exception handling we relay on kprobe_cpu = smp_processor_id()
> to determine
> whether we are inside the kprobe or not. It was so happeing that when we
> take the lock and before kprobe_cpu gets updated if an H/W interrupt happens
> and if kprobe is enabled on ISR routine, then in the kprobe execption handler
> for isr, we miss the indication that we are already in kprobes(since interrupt
> happened before we get to update kprobe_cpu) and we were trying to
> take the lock again and there by causing the deadlock. This deadlock is
> avoided
> by disabling the ISR for a short period while we take the spin_lock() and
> update
> the kprobe_cpu.
OK.
Are you sure that other CPUs can safely read kprobe_cpu without taking the
lock? I don't see any memory barriers in there...
> >
> > Now, probably there's deep magic happening here and I'm wrong. If so then
> > please explain the code's magic via a comment patch so the question doesn't
> > arise again, thanks.
> >
>
> This whole serialization will go away when we introduce the scalability patch.
Yes, it does look rather unscalable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
