linux-kernel - Re: PREEMPT

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:	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 23:08:42 +0200
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs bcache

On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 13:53 -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > As Kent said back in 2011 (commit 84759c6d18c5), bcache needs
> > {down,up}_read_non_owner().  But these are not implemented by the -rt
> > patchset when PREEMPT_RT_FULL is enabled.  Can they be added, or is
> > there a fundamental conflict here?
> 
> You should be able to cherry pick
> 84759c6d18c5144432781ddca037d929ee9db8a5 (Revert "rw_semaphore: remove
> up/down_read_non_owner") - that went in when bcache was merged.

That's the commit I was referring to.  But the -rt patchset has a
separate implementation of semaphores for PREEMPT_RT_FULL.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)