linux-kernel - Re: [patch -mm] slab: use CPU_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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:20:28 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
cc:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] slab: use CPU_LOCK_[ACQUIRE|RELEASE]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> -	case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
> +	case CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE:
>  		mutex_lock(&cache_chain_mutex);
> +		break;

I have got a bad feeling about upcoming deadlock problems when looking at 
the mutex_lock / unlock code in cpuup_callback in slab.c. Branches 
that just obtain a lock or release a lock? I hope there is some 
control of  what happens between lock acquisition and release?

You are aware that this lock is taken for cache shrinking/destroy, tuning 
of cpu cache sizes, proc output and cache creation? Any of those run on 
the same processor should cause a deadlock.
-
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/