linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:38:28 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

On 24 Aug 2006 08:45:11 +0200
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:

> Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com> writes:
> 
> > Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to
> > asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same
> > semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts
> > disabled while it is waiting for the lock.
> 
> Did it fix anything for you?
> 

It's the rendezvous-via-IPI problem.  Suppose we want to capture all CPUs
in an IPI handler (TSC sync, for example).

- CPUa holds read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
- CPUb is spinning in write_lock_irq(&taslist_lock)
- CPUa enters its IPI handler and spins
- CPUb never takes the IPI and we're dead.

Re-enabling interrupts while we spin will prevent that.  But I suspect that
if we ever want to implement IPI rendezvous (and cannot use the
stop_machine_run() thing) then we might still have problems.  A valid
optimisation (which we use in some places) is:

	local_irq_save(flags);
	<stuff>
	write_lock(lock);


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/