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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:40:35 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <>, Christoph Hellwig <>,,,
        Waiman Long <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Will Deacon <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,,,,
Subject: Re: RFC: hold i_rwsem until aio completes

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 03:33:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:24:28AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I was interested because you are talking about allowing the read/write side
> > of a rw sem to be held across a return to user space/etc, which is the
> > same basic problem.
> No it is not; allowing the lock to be held across userspace doesn't
> change the owner. This is a crucial difference, PI depends on there
> being a distinct owner. That said, allowing the lock to be held across
> userspace still breaks PI in that it completely wrecks the ability to
> analyze the critical section.

Thinking about this from a PI point of view, the problem is not that we
returned to userspace still holding the lock, it's that boosting this
process's priority will not help release the lock faster because this
process no longer owns the lock.

If we had a lock owner handoff API (ie I can donate my lock to another
owner), that would solve this problem.  We'd want to have special owners
to denote "RCU" "bottom halves" or "irq" so we know what we can do about
PI.  I don't think we need a "I have stolen this lock from somebody else"
API, but maybe I'm wrong there.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists