On Mon 2022-10-24 17:47:25, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:56 AM John Ogness <john.ogn...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Guarantee safe iteration of the console list by using SRCU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogn...@linutronix.de>
> > ---
> > kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > index 550fe8b456ec..5c0bd93c3574 100644
> > --- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > +++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_io.c
> > @@ -545,6 +545,7 @@ static void kdb_msg_write(const char *msg, int msg_len)
> > {
> > struct console *c;
> > const char *cp;
> > + int cookie;
> > int len;
> >
> > if (msg_len == 0)
> > @@ -558,7 +559,8 @@ static void kdb_msg_write(const char *msg, int msg_len)
> > cp++;
> > }
> >
> > - for_each_console(c) {
> > + cookie = console_srcu_read_lock();
> > + for_each_console_srcu(c) {
>
> Maybe it wouldn't hurt to also have a comment saying that normally the
> console_srcu_read_lock() wouldn't be enough given that we're poking
> into each individual console and calling ->write() but that we're
> relying on the fact that all the other CPUs are stopped at the moment
> and thus we should be safe.
True. I guess that the SRCU lock is not really needed from the same
reason.
Well, the SRCU walk makes sense. It makes sure that the list can be
safely traversed. I mean that pointers are updated and read in
the right order with the right barriers.
Yes, it would be nice to add a comment.
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
