linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] relay: Fix race condition which occurs when reading across CPUs.

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, 16 Jun 2008 00:38:10 -0500
From:	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, compudj@...stal.dyndns.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, righi.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] relay: Fix race condition which occurs when
	reading across CPUs.


On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 19:16 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:26:41 -0500
> Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Alternatively, you could get rid of the problem by making sure CPU0
> >> never reads CPU1's data, by having the userspace reader use per-cpu
> >> threads and using sched_setaffinity() to pin each thread to a given
> >> cpu. See for example, the blktrace code, which does this.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu
> <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro> wrote:
> > Yes, and performance-wise this is better. Though I'm not sure setting
> > affinity is 100% safe. Will the thread be migrated soon enough, so we
> > don't read cross-CPU? The point is I'm not sure how hard this is
> > enforced.
> >
> > However, I suggest this patch should go in, for two reasons:
> > 1. It provides expected behavior in any such situation.
> > 2. It adds (almost) no overhead when used in conjuction with setting CPU
> > affinity. When the writer acquires the spinlock, it does not busy-wait,
> > so the spinlock just disables IRQs (relay_write()).
> 
> Agreed. Tom, any objections to merging this patch?

Well, I suppose anyone who had a problem with it would make their own
local copy of relay_write() without it, or more likely they'd be using
relay_reserve() anyway.  It does add some code to read() which can't be
gotten around, but since it adds (almost) no overhead, it shouldn't be a
problem.

So I guess I don't have strong feelings about it if it's solving a real
usability problem and doesn't cause any performance (or other)
regressions.

Tom

--
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/