linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock

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:	Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:32:40 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...ebsd.org>
Cc:	Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

On Thursday 24 August 2006 13:04, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com> writes:
> > 
> > 
> >>Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to
> >>asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same
> >>semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts
> >>disabled while it is waiting for the lock.
> > 
> > 
> > Did it fix anything for you?
> 
> I think this was to work around the fact that some buggy drivers try to 
> grab spinlocks without disabling interrupts when they should, which 
> would cause deadlocks when trying to rendez-vous every cpu via IPIs.

That doesn't help them at all because they could then deadlock later.

In theory it is just a quite cheesy way to make lock contended code
work a little better, but I was not aware of it actually helping 
in practice.

-Andi


> 
-
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/