On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:37:50PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.03.2020 16:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 01:42:58PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 28.02.2020 13:07, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> Current usage of the per-CPU scratch cpumask is dangerous since
> >>> there's no way to figure out if the mask is already being used except
> >>> for manual code inspection of all the callers and possible call paths.
> >>>
> >>> This is unsafe and not reliable, so introduce a minimal get/put
> >>> infrastructure to prevent nested usage of the scratch mask and usage
> >>> in interrupt context.
> >>>
> >>> Move the declaration of scratch_cpumask to smp.c in order to place the
> >>> declaration and the accessors as close as possible.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> >
> > Ping? This seems to have the required RB, but hasn't been committed.
>
> While as per the R-b this technically is fine, I continue to be
> uncertain whether we actually want to go this far.
If this had been in place 5500d265a2a8fa6 ('x86/smp: use APIC ALLBUT
destination shorthand when possible') wouldn't have introduced a
bogus usage of the scratch per cpu mask, as the check would have
triggered.
After finding that one of my commits introduced a bug I usually do the
exercise of trying to figure out which checks or safeguards would have
prevented it, and hence came up with this patch.
I would also like to note that this adds 0 overhead to non-debug
builds.
> Andrew, as
> per a discussion we had when I was pondering whether to commit
> this, also looks to have similar concerns (which iirc he said he
> had voiced on irc).
Is the concern only related to the fact that you have to use the
get/put accessors and thus more lines of code are added, or is there
something else?
Thanks, Roger.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
