linux-kernel - Re: [HACK] convert i_alloc_sem for direct

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:	Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:39:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	mingo@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [HACK] convert i_alloc_sem for direct_io.c craziness!

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 12:52 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:

> Do you have any suggestions for locking constructs that RT would prefer?

Basically, anything that maps to a simple mutex. Anything more complex
gets real messy real quick.

Locks that have non-exclusive states become non-deterministic because an
unbounded number of contexts can be in this state. Hence acquisition of
the exclusive state has unbounded time. Even when limited to a bounded
number, the ramifications to the PI graph will get you a head-ache.

Also, non-owner locks, ie. semaphores (asymetric acquisition vs release
contexts) are unusable because the lack of ownership undermines PI - who
to boost?

-
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/