On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 03:48:33PM +0800, yiyang (D) wrote: > On 2023/9/18 23:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:35:23PM +0800, yiyang (D) wrote: > > > In recent years, this problem has been reported in syzkaller all the time. > > > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=dbac96d8e73b61aa559c > > > > > > Historically, the developers have tried to fix this problem by use mutex > > > instead spinlock, but it didn't solve the problem.. > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220826193545.20363-1-pchelkin@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Other developers have recently reported this problem, but no one has > > > continued to try to fix it. > > > > > > Link: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230420082153.6711-1-daniel.starke@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Anyway, do we have any ideas for solving this problem? > > > > Nope! Why do you think this is something that even needs to be > > addressed? > > . > > > Kernel only perform cannot sleep operations in atomic context, as otherwise > a system hang or crash may occur. > > So there's a risk to this problem. > Have you see this risk in real workloads? If so, great, please provide a working solution that is tested and verified to work properly. good luck! greg k-h
