linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu

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, 19 Sep 2011 23:17:46 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for
 this_cpu_read/write()

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 23:12 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Actually, that's part of the issue. RT has made spin_locks not migrate.
> But this has also increased the overhead of those same spinlocks. I'm
> hoping to do away with the big hammer approach (although Thomas is less
> interested in this). I would like to have areas that require per-cpu
> variables to be annotated, and not have every spinlock disable
> preemption.
> 

The point is, if I do make this change. It is even more essential that I
detect the preempt enable use of this_cpu() and friends. As the
spin_locks() will no longer be giving that guarantee.

-- Steve


--
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/