linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stack and rcu interaction bug in smp_call_function

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: <489FBF6A.40402@goop.org>
Date:	Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:26:18 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, npiggin@...e.de,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stack and rcu interaction bug in smp_call_function_mask()

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Nice debugging work.
>
> I'd suggest something like the attached (untested) patch as the simple
> fix for now.
>
> I expect the benefits from the less synchronized, multiple-in-flight-data
> global queue will still outweigh the costs of dynamic allocations. But
> if worst comes to worst then we just go back to a globally synchronous
> one-at-a-time implementation, but that would be pretty sad!
>   

What if we went the other way and strictly used queue-per-cpu?  It means 
multicast would require multiple enqueueing operations, which is a bit 
heavy, but it does make dequeuing and lifetime management very simple...

    J
--
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/