On Thu, 19 May 2016, David Daney wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 09:21 PM, Scot Doyle wrote:
> > Two current [1] and three previous [2] systems locked during boot
> > because the cursor flash timer was set using an ops->cur_blink_jiffies
> > value of 0. Previous patches attempted to solve the problem by moving
> > variable initialization earlier in the setup sequence [2].
> >
> > Use the normal cursor blink default interval of 200 ms if
> > ops->cur_blink_jiffies is not in the range specified in commit
> > bd63364caa8d. Since invalid values are not used, specific system
> > initialization timings should not cause lockups.
> >
>
> This patch just papers over the problem that you yourself introduced in commit
> bd63364caa8d ("vt: add cursor blink interval escape sequence").
>
> As you know, I have a patch that fixes the problem at the source:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/17/455
>
> I don't like the idea of silently ignoring bad values passed in from other
> code (drivers/tty/vt/vt.c), and much less doing the check for bad values each
> time the timer expires rather than just once, where the bad value is first
> introduced.
>
> I think it would be preferable to WARN() at the site the bad value is
> introduced, so that we can easily find the real source of the problem.
> Initialize cur_blink_jiffies to a sane default value, then if something
> attempts to set it to a value that would cause soft lockup, WARN and refuse to
> change it.
I agree this approach would be cleaner and am willing to give it a try
by submitting an alternative patch and ack'ing yours. Thanks for taking
the time to critique my proposal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html