On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That's what I meant, but I said it unclearly. I meant that, if we're >> going to start allowing interruption, we would need to audit all the >> callers. Ugh. > > There are actually two audits worth evaluating if what we've concluded > is fair game: > > a) firmware sync calls on interruptible paths > b) use of swait / old interruptible waits on sysfs paths And as I noted in the other thread -- another possible issue could be any swait / interruptable wait on init or probe. Provided any child completes and the kernel code for wait handler does abort, that request would be terminated. This could for instance happen at bootup as modules load and any child from the loader terminates. We already have Coccinelle grammar to hunt for "though shall not request firmware on init or probe", such SmPL grammar could be in turn be repruposed to hunt for these types of conditions. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
