Re: [PATCH -next] um: vector: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 28/11/2019 08:41, Richard Weinberger wrote:
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
Von: "anton ivanov" <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Wei Yongjun" <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: "Song Liu" <songliubraving@xxxxxx>, "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "kernel-janitors"
<kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "richard" <richard@xxxxxx>, "Jeff Dike" <jdike@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-um"
<linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@xxxxxx>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. November 2019 09:18:30
Betreff: Re: [PATCH -next] um: vector: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

On 28/11/2019 08:06, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 02:01:47AM +0000, Wei Yongjun wrote:
A spin lock is taken here so we should use GFP_ATOMIC.

Fixes: 9807019a62dc ("um: Loadable BPF "Firmware" for vector drivers")
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
   arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c | 4 ++--
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
index 92617e16829e..6ff0065a271d 100644
--- a/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
+++ b/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
@@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@ static int vector_net_load_bpf_flash(struct net_device
*dev,
   		kfree(vp->bpf->filter);
   		vp->bpf->filter = NULL;
   	} else {
-		vp->bpf = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sock_fprog), GFP_KERNEL);
+		vp->bpf = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sock_fprog), GFP_ATOMIC);
   		if (vp->bpf == NULL) {
   			netdev_err(dev, "failed to allocate memory for firmware\n");
   			goto flash_fail;
@@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static int vector_net_load_bpf_flash(struct net_device
*dev,
   	if (request_firmware(&fw, efl->data, &vdevice->pdev.dev))
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is it really possible to call request_firmware() while holding a
spin_lock?  I was so sure that read from the disk.

Works, I tested the patch quite a few times.

It works because of the nature of UML ->no  SMP or PREEMPT.
But better request the firmware before taking the spinlock.
request_firmware() can block.
Same for the kmalloc(), just allocate the buffer before and then assign
the pointer under the lock. That way you don't need GFP_ATOMIC.

Ack.

I will make an incremental on top of the existing patch (as that is already in -next

Brgds,


Thanks,
//richard

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um


--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux