On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Nadav Amit wrote: > text_mutex is expected to be held before text_poke() is called, but we > cannot add a lockdep assertion since kgdb does not take it, and instead > *supposedly* ensures the lock is not taken and will not be acquired by > any other core while text_poke() is running. > > The reason for the "supposedly" comment is that it is not entirely clear > that this would be the case if gdb_do_roundup is zero. > > Add a comment to clarify this behavior, and restore the assertions as > they were before the recent commit.
It restores nothing. It just removes the assertion. > This partially reverts commit 9222f606506c ("x86/alternatives: > Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()") That opens up the same can of worms again, which took us a while to close. Can we please instead split out the text_poke() code into a helper function and have two callers: text_poke() which contains the assert text_poke_kgdb() which does not Thanks, tglx