linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v3

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, 27 May 2013 11:13:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, robclark@...il.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v3

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 27-05-13 10:00, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:24:38PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>>> +- Functions to only acquire a single w/w mutex, which results in the exact same
> >>>> +  semantics as a normal mutex. These functions have the _single postfix.
> >>> This is missing rationale.
> >> trylock_single is useful when iterating over a list, and you want to evict a bo, but only the first one that can be acquired.
> >> lock_single is useful when only a single bo needs to be acquired, for example to lock a buffer during mmap.
> > OK, so given that its still early, monday and I haven't actually spend
> > much time thinking on this; would it be possible to make:
> > ww_mutex_lock(.ctx=NULL) act like ww_mutex_lock_single()?
> >
> > The idea is that if we don't provide a ctx, we'll get a different
> > lockdep annotation; mutex_lock() vs mutex_lock_nest_lock(). So if we
> > then go and make a mistake, lockdep should warn us.
> >
> > Would that work or should I stock up on morning juice?
> >
> It's easy to merge unlock_single and unlock, which I did in the next version I'll post.
> Lockdep will already warn if ww_mutex_lock and ww_mutex_lock_single are both
> used. ww_test_block_context and ww_test_context_block in lib/locking-selftest.c
> are the testcases for this.
> 
> The locking paths are too different, it will end up with doing "if (ctx == NULL) mutex_lock(); else ww_mutex_lock();"

I was more thinking like:

int __sched ww_mutex_lock(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
{
	might_sleep();
	return __mutex_lock_common(&lock->base, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0,
				   ctx ? ctx->dep_map : NULL, _RET_IP_,
				   ctx, 0);
}

That should make ww_mutex_lock(.ctx=NULL) equivalent to
mutex_lock(&lock->base), no?

Anyway, implementation aside, it would again reduce the interface some.
--
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/