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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0611211244200.6140-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:56:21 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

Here's another potential problem with the fast path approach.  It's not 
very serious, but you might want to keep it in mind.

The idea is that a reader can start up on one CPU and finish on another, 
and a writer might see the finish event but not the start event.  For 
example:

	Reader A enters the critical section on CPU 0 and starts
	accessing the old data area.

	Writer B updates the data pointer and starts executing
	srcu_readers_active_idx() to check if the fast path can be
	used.  It sees per_cpu_ptr(0)->c[idx] == 1 because of
	Reader A.

	Reader C runs srcu_read_lock() on CPU 0, setting 
	per_cpu_ptr[0]->c[idx] to 2.

	Reader C migrates to CPU 1 and leaves the critical section;
	srcu_read_unlock() sets per_cpu_ptr(1)->c[idx] to -1.

	Writer B finishes the cpu loop in srcu_readers_active_idx(),
	seeing per_cpu_ptr(1)->c[idx] == -1.  It computes sum =
	1 + -1 == 0, takes the fast path, and exits immediately
	from synchronize_srcu().

	Writer B deallocates the old data area while Reader A is still
	using it.

This requires two context switches to take place while the cpu loop in
srcu_readers_active_idx() runs, so perhaps it isn't realistic.  Is it
worth worrying about?

Alan

-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ