On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 3:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 4:42 AM Puranjay Mohan <puran...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Puranjay, Andrii and All, > > > > > > looks like if (irqs_disabled()) is not enough. > > > Should we change it to preemptible() ? > > > > > > It will likely make it async all the time, > > > but in this it's an ok trade off? > > > > > > > Yes, as BPF programs can run in all kinds of contexts. > > > > We should replace 'if (irqs_disabled())' with 'if (!preemptible())' > > > > because the definition is: > > > > #define preemptible() (preempt_count() == 0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > and we need if ((preempt_count() != 0) || irqs_disabled()), in both > > these cases we want to make it async. > > > > I will try to test the fix as Syzbot has now found a reproducer. > > Puranjay, > > Any progress on a patch ?
ping.
