linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] (Refcount + Waitqueue) implementation for cpu

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 18:28:14 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] (Refcount + Waitqueue) implementation for cpu_hotplug "locking"

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:25:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> no. The writer first sets the global write_active flag, and _then_ goes 
> on to wait for all readers (if any) to get out of their critical 
> sections. (That's the purpose of the per-cpu waitqueue that readers use 
> to wake up a writer waiting for the refcount to go to 0.)
> 
> can you still see problems with this scheme?

This can cause a deadlock sometimes, when a thread tries to take the
read_lock() recursively, with a writer having come in between the two
recursive reads:

	Reader1 on CPU0			Writer1 on CPU1

	read_lock() - success

					write_lock() - blocks on Reader1
						  (writer_active = 1)


	read_lock() - blocks on Writer1

The only way to avoid this deadlock is to either keep track of
cpu_hp_lock_count per-task (like the preemption count kept per-task)
or allow read_lock() to succeed if reader_count > 1 (even if
writer_active = 1). The later makes the lock unduely biased towards
readers.


-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/