linux-kernel - Re: SPAM: Re: [patch 6/6] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks

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: <20061015141953.GC25243@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:19:53 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: SPAM: Re: [patch 6/6] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:51:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Why use raw {inc,dec}_preempt_count() and not
> > > preempt_{disable,enable}()? Is the compiler barrier not needed here? And
> > > do we really want to avoid the preempt_check_resched()?
> > 
> > Counter to intuition, we actually don't mind being preempted here,
> > but we do mind entering the (core) pagefault handler. Incrementing
> > the preempt count causes the arch specific handler to bail out early
> > before it takes any locks.
> > 
> > Clear as mud? Wrapping it in a better name might be an improvement?
> > Or wrapping it into the copy*user_atomic functions themselves (which
> > is AFAIK the only place we use it).
> 
> Right, but since you do inc the preempt_count you do disable preemption,
> might as well check TIF_NEED_RESCHED when enabling preemption again.

Yeah, you are right about that. Unfortunately there isn't a good
way to do this at the moment... well we could disable preempt
around the section, but that would be silly for a PREEMPT kernel.

And we should really decouple it from preempt entirely, in case we
ever want to check for it some other way in the pagefault handler.

-
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/