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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:56:14 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: RFC: hold i_rwsem until aio completes On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:27:00PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > I've seen similar locking patterns quite a lot, enough I've thought > about having a dedicated locking primitive to do it. It really wants > to be a rwsem, but as here the rwsem rules don't allow it. > > The common pattern I'm looking at looks something like this: > > 'try begin read'() // aka down_read_trylock() > > /* The lockdep release hackery you describe, > the rwsem remains read locked */ > 'exit reader'() > > .. delegate unlock to work queue, timer, irq, etc .. > > in the new context: > > 're_enter reader'() // Get our lockdep tracking back > > 'end reader'() // aka up_read() > > vs a typical write side: > > 'begin write'() // aka down_write() > > /* There is no reason to unlock it before kfree of the rwsem memory. > Somehow the user prevents any new down_read_trylock()'s */ > 'abandon writer'() // The object will be kfree'd with a locked writer > kfree() > > The typical goal is to provide an object destruction path that can > serialize and fence all readers wherever they may be before proceeding > to some synchronous destruction. > > Usually this gets open coded with some atomic/kref/refcount and a > completion or wait queue. Often implemented wrongly, lacking the write > favoring bias in the rwsem, and lacking any lockdep tracking on the > naked completion. > > Not to discourage your patch, but to ask if we can make the solution > more broadly applicable? Your requirement seems a little different, and in fact in many ways similar to the percpu_ref primitive.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists