linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf

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, 10 Jun 2011 11:30:49 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
	Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> >   => only a 'there be dragons' mental marker
> 
> Right, my reply was that I couldn't convince myself unlock order 
> could make a difference, but clearly I can easily have missed 
> something subtle.
> 
> > and i have to say that when i found a boot lockup during testing 
> > i was not surprised very much :)
> 
> But you found a lockup on the second patch, not this one.

Yeah, it's not like my mental markers are overly precise! ;-)

> Also, this patch is important for #3, where we want to take 
> logbuf_lock under the semaphore internal lock, that too would 
> preclude us doing that up() in the old location.

Yeah. I'm not against it or anything (hey i suggested the whole 
thing), but i'll be testing this through carefully.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/