Hello Sebastian, On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 5:40 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2024-11-20 10:26:02 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The "%pK" dereferences a pointer and there's some SELinux hooks attached to > > that code. The problem is that the SELinux hooks take spinlocks. This would > > not have been an issue if it wasn't for that "%pK" in the format. > > That is missing check and I think Thomas Weissschuh wanted to add it. So > we don't call into selinux. Your comment confuses me a bit, as I'm unsure what Thomas is actually working on. Am I correct in assuming he's addressing a fix in lib/vsprintf.c to ensure that sleeping functions aren't called, allowing these functions to work in any context? However, his mention of "This fix for kmemleak is still needed as the pointers in the kmemleak report are useful" adds to my confusion. Meanwhile, Steven suggests reworking SELinux to resolve the issue. Could you clarify what you mean by "So we don't call into selinux"? > > Sebastian > Thanks -- --- 172
