linux-kernel - PREEMP_ACTIVE in cond

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:00:16 +0800
From:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: PREEMP_ACTIVE in cond_resched

cond_resched() checks and conditionally sets PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag for
the current task. The comments says,

/*
* The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped
* PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
* cond_resched() call.
*/

My understanding is that cond_resched() would be indirectly invoked
twice recursively, through the following path,

cond_resched() -> schedule() -> reacquire_kernel_lock() -> down() ->
might_sleep() -> might_resched() -> cond_resched().

However, the above path is possible only in a voluntary-preemptive
kernel. In a full-preemptive kernel, I do not find any possible path
to cause recursive cond_resched(). Does that mean we can actually
remove the check and setting of PREEMPT_ACTIVE for a full-preemptive
kernel?
-
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/