linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] spinlock: lockbreak cleanup

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:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:29:33 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] spinlock: lockbreak cleanup

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:02 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > Rename need_lockbreak to spin_needbreak, make it use spin_is_contended to
> > decouple it from the spinlock implementation, and make it typesafe (rwlocks
> > do not have any need_lockbreak sites -- why do they even get bloated up
> > with that break_lock then?).
> 
> IIRC Lee has a few patches floating about that do introduce lockbreak
> stuff for rwlocks.

Well that would be a good reason to introduce a break_lock for them,
but previously not so much... we have rwlocks in some slightly space
critical structures (vmas, inodes, etc).

I guess it was done to make the "template" hacks eaiser. I don't really
find that in good taste, especially for important core infrastructure.
Anyway.
-
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/