linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: always align cpu_slab to honor cmpxchg

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, 3 Jun 2011 08:49:10 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: always align cpu_slab to honor cmpxchg_double requirement

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 1:16 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> On an architecture without CMPXCHG_LOCAL but with DEBUG_VM enabled,
>>> the VM_BUG_ON() in __pcpu_double_call_return_bool() will cause an early
>>> panic during boot unless we always align cpu_slab properly.
>>>
>>> In principle we could remove the alignment-testing VM_BUG_ON() for
>>> architectures that don't have CMPXCHG_LOCAL, but leaving it in means
>>> that new code will tend not to break x86 even if it is introduced
>>> on another platform, and it's low cost to require alignment.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
>> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>>
>>> ---
>>> This needs to be pushed for 3.0 to allow arch/tile to boot.
>>> I'm happy to push it but I assume it would be better coming
>>> from an mm or percpu tree.  Thanks!
>>>
>> Should also be marked for stable for 2.6.39.x, right?
>
> No, in 2.6.39 the irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double() was guarded under "#ifdef
> CONFIG_CMPXCHG_LOCAL".  Now it's not.  I suppose we could take the comment
> change in percpu.h for 2.6.39, but it probably doesn't merit churning the
> stable tree.

Yup. Looks good. Christoph?
--
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/