linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] hacks to allow -rt to run kernbench on POWER

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:	Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:54:35 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tony@...eyournoodle.com, paulus@...ba.org, dino@...ibm.com,
	tytso@...ibm.com, antonb@...ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] hacks to allow -rt to run kernbench on POWER


On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 07:07 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: 
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > A few random patches that permit POWER to pass kernbench on -rt.
> > Many of these have more focus on expediency than care for correctness,
> > so might best be thought of as workarounds than as complete solutions.
> > There are still issues not addressed by this patch, including:
> > 
> > o	kmem_cache_alloc() from non-preemptible context during
> > 	bootup (xics_startup() building the irq_radix_revmap()).
> > 
> > o	unmap_vmas() freeing pages with preemption disabled.
> > 	Might be able to address this by linking the pages together,
> > 	then freeing them en masse after preemption has been re-enabled,
> > 	but there is likely a better approach.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I see a lot of case where you add preempt_disable/enable around areas
> that have the PTE lock held...
> 
> So in -rt, spin_lock doesn't disable preempt ? I'm a bit worried...

So as Paul mentioned, spin_lock is now a mutex.  There is a new
raw_spinlock however (simply change the way it is declared, calling
conventions are the same) which is used in a very few areas where a
traditional spin_lock is truly necessary.  This may or may not be one of
those times, but I wanted to point it out.

--Darren


> there are some strong requirements that anything within that lock is not
> preempted, so zap_pte_ranges() is the obvious ones but all of them would
> need to be addressed.
> 
> Ben.
> 
> 

-
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/