linux-kernel - Re: contention on long-held spinlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:24:48 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
Cc:	Ortwin Glück <odi@....ch>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	linux-driver@...gic.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: contention on long-held spinlock

On Friday 19 August 2011, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> That's what mutexes are for. Note, however, that interrupt handlers
> cannot use mutexes as they cannot sleep, nor can they wait for lock
> holders which may themselves sleep.

I agree that there is probably some other bug that needs to be fixed
in the driver, but for testing it may well be worth replacing
the spinlock with a mutex and the request_irq with request_threaded_irq.
A threaded IRQ is slower than a normal one but does allow mutexes.

	Arnd
--
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/