On (10/18/17 15:21), Tobin C. Harding wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> index 86c3385b9eb3..4609738cd2cd 100644
> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
> #include <linux/uuid.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <net/addrconf.h>
> +#include <linux/siphash.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
> #include <linux/blkdev.h>
> #endif
> @@ -1591,6 +1593,70 @@ char *device_node_string(char *buf, char *end, struct
> device_node *dn,
> return widen_string(buf, buf - buf_start, end, spec);
> }
>
> +/* protects ptr_secret and have_key */
> +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(key_lock);
> +static siphash_key_t ptr_secret __read_mostly;
> +static atomic_t have_key = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> +
> +static int initialize_ptr_secret(void)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&key_lock);
> + if (atomic_read(&have_key) == 1)
> + goto unlock;
> +
> + get_random_bytes(&ptr_secret, sizeof(ptr_secret));
> + atomic_set(&have_key, 1);
> +
> +unlock:
> + spin_unlock(&key_lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
is this spinlock legal? what happens if we are getting interrupted by NMI?
printk()
vprintk_emit()
vscnprintf()
pointer()
ptr_to_id()
initialize_ptr_secret()
spin_lock(&key_lock)
----> NMI
printk()
printk_safe_log_store()
vscnprintf()
pointer()
ptr_to_id()
initialize_ptr_secret()
spin_lock(&key_lock) <<<<
or am I completely misreading the patch? sorry if so.
-ss
