linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare

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]

Message-Id: <1153947786.3381.58.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:03:06 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be
	totally bizare

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 13:42 -0700, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:42:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > As a quick hack I made non-lock_cpu_hotplug()'ing versions of the 3 key
> > workqueue functions (patch below). It works, it's correct, it's just so
> > ugly that I'm almost too ashamed to post it. I haven't found a better
> > solution yet though... time to take a step back I suppose.
> 
> My worry is that such special cases might be needed in more places as we
> discover further or as code evolves. Fundamentally looks like the locked and 
> unlocked paths of the kernel cannot be separated so well because of interaction 
> between subsystems. /me thinks rwsem seems to be a sane thing to go after.

rwsems unfortunately help you zilch; an rwsem is just a mutex with a
performance tweak, but from the deadlock perspective it's really a
mutex.

I'm really starting to feel that the hotplug lock would have been better
of being a refcount (with a waitqueue for zero) than a lock. While
"refcount+waitqueue" sort of IS a lock, the semantics make more sense
imo...

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven
-
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/