linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_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]

Message-Id: <20061028094931.65a0f218.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:49:31 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>, ego@...ibm.com,
	vatsa@...ibm.com,
	"Benzi Galili (Benzi@...leMP.com)" <benzi@...lemp.com>,
	Alok Kataria <alok.kataria@...softinc.com>, shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:19:19 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote:

> Another note.  Looks like a cpu hotplug event can send  CPU_UP_CANCELED to
> a registered subsystem even if the subsystem did not receive CPU_UP_PREPARE.
> This could be due to a subsystem registered for notification earlier than
> the current subsystem crapping out with NOTIFY_BAD. Badness can occur with
> in the CPU_UP_CANCELED code path at slab if this happens (The same would
> apply for workqueue.c as well).

yup, cancellation doesn't work at present.

>  To overcome this, we might have to use either
> a) a per subsystem flag and avoid handling of CPU_UP_CANCELED, or
> b) Use a special notifier events like LOCK_ACQUIRE/RELEASE as Gautham was
>    using in his experiments, or
> c) Do not send CPU_UP_CANCELED to a subsystem which did not receive
>    CPU_UP_PREPARE.
> 
> I would prefer c).

c) would work.  I guess we could do that by simply counting the number of
called handlers rather than having to record state within each one.

It would require changes to the notifier_chain API, but I think the changes
are needed - the problem is general.  Something like:


int __raw_notifier_call_chain(struct raw_notifier_head *nh,
		unsigned long val, void *v, unsigned nr_to_call, int *nr_called);

int raw_notifier_call_chain(struct raw_notifier_head *nh,
		unsigned long val, void *v)
{
	return __raw_notifier_call_chain(nh, val, v, -1, NULL);
}


-
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/