linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] dlm fix for 2.6.38

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:	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:38:44 -0500
From:	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] dlm fix for 2.6.38

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 03:44:35PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > What is the issue here? If there is a problem with the workqueues then
> > we should ask Tejun about it,
>
> Yeah, what kind of problem was it?  There's only one work per
> connection so reordering is not a problem.  All the workqueue
> operations use proper locking, so the conversion seemed safe to me.
> What am I missing?

find_lkb seems to be getting an actual, but wrong lkid, so it's returning
the wrong lkb in the receive routines.  It happens fairly quickly with
multiple wq threads, but not at all with single.  One suspect I'm going to
look at are the ls_stub and fields in the lockspace struct.  I'm not
convinced extra send/recv threads give us that much benefit in practice,
so it's not my top priority at the moment.

Dave

--
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/