linux-kernel - Re: Spinlocks: Factor our GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in order to avoid spin with irqs disable

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: <20080509102607.GF19617@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2008 12:26:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks: Factor our GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in order to avoid spin
	with irqs disable


* Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> Subject: Spinlocks: Factor our GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in order to avoid 
> spin with irqs disabled
> 
> The nice spinlock functions that enable interrupts while spinning are 
> only usable if GENERIC_LOCKBREAK is set (and we do not debug locks but 
> lock debugging would not be used for a production configuration).
> 
> Factor out the dependencies on the ->lock_break field from the nice 
> functions into a set of BREAKLOCK macros (cannot be functions since 
> the type of the lock variable varies).
> 
> The nice spinlock function can then also be used if !GENERIC_LOCKBREAK

hm, there was some lockdep complication in this area. I guess we could 
use the 'nice' variants too if their irq-enabling/disabling was properly 
lockdep annotated and tracked by the irqflags machinery?

	Ingo
--
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/