Centos-kernel-stream-9/include/linux/once_lite.h

37 lines
925 B
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
#ifndef _LINUX_ONCE_LITE_H
#define _LINUX_ONCE_LITE_H
#include <linux/types.h>
/* Call a function once. Similar to DO_ONCE(), but does not use jump label
* patching via static keys.
*/
#define DO_ONCE_LITE(func, ...) \
DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(true, func, ##__VA_ARGS__)
x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2160210 commit a1a5482a2c6e38a3ebed32e571625c56a8cc41a6 Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: Fri Jun 17 16:52:06 2022 +0200 x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the > kernel is causing some problems with messages printed on the > console. > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > accesses once but the callstack multiple times causing confusion on > the console. > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming > that no caller is ever checking the return value of the functions. > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the > associated printk() msg. Extract the ONCE_IF(cond) part into __ONCE_LTE_IF() and use that to implement DO_ONCE_LITE_IF() and fix the extable code. Fixes: a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
2023-03-24 10:24:32 +00:00
#define __ONCE_LITE_IF(condition) \
({ \
static bool __section(".data.once") __already_done; \
x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2160210 commit a1a5482a2c6e38a3ebed32e571625c56a8cc41a6 Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: Fri Jun 17 16:52:06 2022 +0200 x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the > kernel is causing some problems with messages printed on the > console. > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > accesses once but the callstack multiple times causing confusion on > the console. > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming > that no caller is ever checking the return value of the functions. > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the > associated printk() msg. Extract the ONCE_IF(cond) part into __ONCE_LTE_IF() and use that to implement DO_ONCE_LITE_IF() and fix the extable code. Fixes: a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
2023-03-24 10:24:32 +00:00
bool __ret_cond = !!(condition); \
bool __ret_once = false; \
\
x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2160210 commit a1a5482a2c6e38a3ebed32e571625c56a8cc41a6 Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: Fri Jun 17 16:52:06 2022 +0200 x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the > kernel is causing some problems with messages printed on the > console. > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > accesses once but the callstack multiple times causing confusion on > the console. > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming > that no caller is ever checking the return value of the functions. > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the > associated printk() msg. Extract the ONCE_IF(cond) part into __ONCE_LTE_IF() and use that to implement DO_ONCE_LITE_IF() and fix the extable code. Fixes: a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
2023-03-24 10:24:32 +00:00
if (unlikely(__ret_cond && !__already_done)) { \
__already_done = true; \
x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2160210 commit a1a5482a2c6e38a3ebed32e571625c56a8cc41a6 Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: Fri Jun 17 16:52:06 2022 +0200 x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the > kernel is causing some problems with messages printed on the > console. > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > accesses once but the callstack multiple times causing confusion on > the console. > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming > that no caller is ever checking the return value of the functions. > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the > associated printk() msg. Extract the ONCE_IF(cond) part into __ONCE_LTE_IF() and use that to implement DO_ONCE_LITE_IF() and fix the extable code. Fixes: a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
2023-03-24 10:24:32 +00:00
__ret_once = true; \
} \
x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2160210 commit a1a5482a2c6e38a3ebed32e571625c56a8cc41a6 Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: Fri Jun 17 16:52:06 2022 +0200 x86/extable: Fix ex_handler_msr() print condition On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:08:52PM +0300, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Some changes to the way invalid MSR accesses are reported by the > kernel is causing some problems with messages printed on the > console. > > We have seen several cases of ex_handler_msr() printing invalid MSR > accesses once but the callstack multiple times causing confusion on > the console. > The problem here is that another earlier commit (5.13): > > a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") > > Modifies all the pr_*_once() calls to always return true claiming > that no caller is ever checking the return value of the functions. > > This is why we are seeing the callstack printed without the > associated printk() msg. Extract the ONCE_IF(cond) part into __ONCE_LTE_IF() and use that to implement DO_ONCE_LITE_IF() and fix the extable code. Fixes: a358f40600b3 ("once: implement DO_ONCE_LITE for non-fast-path "do once" functionality") Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyVFsbviKjVGGZ9@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
2023-03-24 10:24:32 +00:00
unlikely(__ret_once); \
})
#define DO_ONCE_LITE_IF(condition, func, ...) \
({ \
bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
\
if (__ONCE_LITE_IF(__ret_do_once)) \
func(__VA_ARGS__); \
\
unlikely(__ret_do_once); \
})
#endif /* _LINUX_ONCE_LITE_H */