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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:29:00 -0700 From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> To: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: epoll: possible bug from wakeup_source activation On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote: > Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote: >> > Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote: >> >> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source >> >> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws? >> >> >> >> Yes, that looks like a problem. I think calling >> >> ep_destroy_wakeup_source with ep->lock held should fix that. It is not >> >> clear how useful changing EPOLLWAKEUP in ep_modify is, so >> >> alternatively we could remove that feature and instead only allow it >> >> to be set in ep_insert. >> > >> > ep->lock would work, but ep->lock is already a source of heavy >> > contention in my multithreaded+epoll webservers. >> >> This should not have any significant impact on that since you would be >> adding a lock to a code path that is, as far as I know, unused. >> >> > Perhaps RCU can be used? I've no experience with RCU, but I've been >> > meaning to get acquainted with RCU. >> >> That adds code to the common path however. The wakeup_source is not >> touch without holding one of the locks so holding both locks before >> deleting it seems like a simpler solution. > > True. However, I've been looking into eliminating ep->lock in more > places (maybe entirely)[1]. > > I don't think the current overhead of RCU in epoll is significant, > either. > > > [1] I'll be testing Mathieu's wait-free concurrent queue soon: > http://mid.gmane.org/20130311213602.GB9829@Krystal OK, but is there any way you could use the same locking scheme for the wakeup_source and the queue? -- Arve Hjønnevåg -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists