linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp

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:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:51:12 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()

* David Howells (dhowells@...hat.com) wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org> wrote:
> 
> > > I mean, the darned thing is called from sched_clock(), which can be
> > > concurrently called on separate CPUs and which can be called from
> > > interrupt context (with an arbitrary nesting level!) while it was running
> > > in process context.
> > 
> > Yes!  And this is so on *purpose*.  Please take some time to read the 
> > comment that goes along with it, and if you're still not convinced then 
> > look for those explanation emails I've already posted.
> 
> I agree with Nicolas on this.  It's abominably clever, but I think he's right.
> 
> The one place I remain unconvinced is over the issue of preemption of a process
> that is in the middle of cnt32_to_63(), where if the preempted process is
> asleep for long enough, I think it can wind time backwards when it resumes, but
> that's not a problem for the one place I want to use it (sched_clock()) because
> that is (almost) always called with preemption disabled in one way or another.
> 
> The one place it isn't is a debugging case that I'm not too worried about.
> 

I am also concerned about the non-preemption off case.

Then I think the function should document that it must be called with
preempt disabled.

Mathieu

> > > /*
> > >  * Caller must provide locking to protect *caller_state
> > >  */
> > 
> > NO!  This is meant to be LOCK FREE!
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> David

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/