linux-kernel - Re: LTTng "TIF_KERNEL

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:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:44:21 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LTTng "TIF_KERNEL_TRACE"

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:38:25PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> No, read-write lock is a "special case" where it does not deadlock if
> you have an interrupt handler taking the read lock over another read
> lock. It's just the write lock that _must absolutely_ disable
> interrupts.


Ah, you're right, I was thinking with spinlock rules in mind :)


> However, the "latency race" scenario I explained above applies here,
> because the write lock disables interrupts and the read locks doesn't.
> 
> Mathieu
> 

--
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/