linux-kernel - Re: Semphore -> mutex in the device tree

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: <1208447153.7115.23.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:45:53 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Semphore -> mutex in the device tree

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 11:22 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Peter:
> 
> The obstacle to converting the semaphore in struct device to a mutex 
> has been that its tree-oriented usage pattern isn't compatible with 
> lockdep.
> 
> In order to get around this and at least begin the conversion process,
> how about adding a provision for making some classes of mutex invisible
> to lockdep?  I know it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, but maybe
> it's a step in the right direction.

the device lock has two problems with lockdep:

 1) on suspend it takes more than MAX_LOCK_DEPTH (48) locks

 2) tree nesting


Lets start with the easy one first; would a similar solution to the
radix tree locking as found in -rt work?

http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/concurrent-pagecache/23-rc1-rt/radix-concurrent-lockdep.patch

That does mean you have to set an effective max depth to the tree, is
that a practical issue?

The harder part is 1), holding _that_ many locks. Would something
obscene like this work for you:


struct device_suspend {
	wait_queue_head_t	wait_queue;
	struct srcu_struct	srcu;
	int			suspend;
} dev_suspend_state;

void device_lock(struct device *dev)
{
again:
	srcu_read_lock(&dev_suspend_state.srcu);
	if (unlikely(rcu_dereference(dev_suspend_state.suspend))) {
		srcu_read_unlock(&dev_suspend_state.srcu);
		wait_event(&dev_suspend_state.wait_queue,
			   !dev_suspend_state.suspend);
		goto again;
	}
	mutex_lock(&dev->mutex);
}

void device_unlock(struct device *dev)
{
	mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
	srcu_read_unlock(&dev_suspend_state.srcu);
}


void device_suspend(void)
{
	rcu_assign_pointer(dev_suspend_state.suspend, 1);
	synchronize_srcu(&dev_suspend_state.srcu);
}

void device_resume(void)
{
	rcu_assign_pointer(dev_suspend_state.suspend, 0);
	wake_up_all(&dev_suspend_state.wait_queue);
}




--
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/