linux-kernel - Re: down_killable implementations for every architecture

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: <200801290523.52993.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:23:52 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: down_killable implementations for every architecture

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 00:19, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> As part of the TASK_KILLABLE changes, we're going to need
> down_killable().  Unfortunately, semaphores are implemented for every
> architecture, which we should probably fix at some point.

It would be best to just change it now before doing further changes. Right now
we have the bizarre situation that semaphores are more optimized
with fast path inline assembly code than the far more critical spinlocks.
But that clearly doesn't make much sense. So the best approach would
be likely to just pick some generic C implementation from some architecture
and use it everywhere.

-Andi
--
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/