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]

Message-ID: <44EDCB83.2010806@mbligh.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:53:39 -0700
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:09 +1000
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Edward Falk wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>This fix is courtesy of Michael Davidson
>>
>>So, what's the bug? You shouldn't rely on these semantics anyway
>>because you should never expect to wait for a spinlock for so long
>>(and it may be the case that irqs can't be enabled anyway).
>>
>>BTW. you should be cc'ing Andi Kleen (x86+/-64 maintainer) on
>>this type of stuff.
>>
>>No comments on the merits of adding this feature. I suppose parity
>>with i386 is a good thing, though.
>>
> 
> 
> We put this into x86 ages ago and Andi ducked the x86_64 patch at the time.
> 
> I don't recall any reports about the x86 patch (Zwane?) improving or
> worsening anything.  I guess there are some theoretical interrupt latency
> benefits.

Spinlocks are indeed meant to be held for a short time, but irq
disabling is meant to be shorter.

I think the real question is: what is the justification for disabling
interrupts when spinning for a lock? We should never disable interrupts
unless we have to.

M.
-
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/