Hi Doug,
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 23:36, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:45 PM Hitomi Hasegawa
> <hasegawa-hitomi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> > {
> > const struct sysrq_key_op *op_p;
> > @@ -573,6 +606,10 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> > int orig_suppress_printk;
> > int i;
> >
> > + /* Skip sysrq handling if one already in progress */
> > + if (sysrq_nmi_key != -1)
> > + return;
>
> Should this give a warning?
>
> Also, can you remind me why this is safe if two CPUs both call
> handle_sysrq() at the same time? Can't both of them make it past this?
> That doesn't seem so great.
>
>
> > @@ -596,7 +633,13 @@ void __handle_sysrq(int key, bool check_mask)
> > if (!check_mask || sysrq_on_mask(op_p->enable_mask)) {
> > pr_info("%s\n", op_p->action_msg);
> > console_loglevel = orig_log_level;
> > - op_p->handler(key);
> > +
> > + if (in_nmi() && !op_p->nmi_safe) {
> > + sysrq_nmi_key = key;
> > + irq_work_queue(&sysrq_irq_work);
>
> It looks like irq_work_queue() returns false if it fails to queue.
> Maybe it's worth checking and setting "sysrq_nmi_key" back to -1 if it
> fails?
Thanks for your comments. I hope v4 here [1] addresses all of them.
Please have a look again.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/3/7/1059
-Sumit
