linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rfc: threaded epoll

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: <463F9B68.305@haxent.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 07 May 2007 18:34:32 -0300
From:	Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfc: threaded epoll_wait thundering herd

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br> wrote:
>> A google search turns up a few users. It also addresses some complaints
>> from Drepper.
> 
> There is a huge problem with this approach and we're back at the
> inadequate interface.
> 
> select/poll/epoll are thread cancellation points.  I.e., the thread
> can be canceled before returning to the user.  If this cancellation
> happens between the kernel deciding to give this thread the event (and
> no other thread) and the thread testing for cancellation in the libc
> wrapper around the syscall, then the event is lost and the process(es)
> might hang.
> 
> With kevent we in the end fixed the problem by requiring that part of
> the cancellation handling the thread tries to wake up another thread
> waiting for the event queue.  This is easily possible since the event
> data is in the shared memory segment and it's just purely the thread
> wakeup that is needed.
> 
> To make something like this work for poll you'd have to push back the
> revents fields of the result back to the kernel which might then cause
> another thread to be woken up.  I find this too ugly to consider.  You
> guys will not believe this but I really thought all these things
> through before writing the OLS paper.  poll cannot be salvaged.

See Linus's message on this same thread.

> There is another thing about this selective wakeup: do I assume it
> correctly that if more than one file descriptor is reported ready more
> than one thread is woken?  I think nothing else can be justified.

Correct.

> Will in this case both threads get the same set of descriptors
> reported or will they see disjunct sets?

Disjunct. In reality, only if the event is edge triggered.

--
Davi Arnaut
-
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/