linux-kernel - Re: [PATH -mm -v2] Fix a race condtion of oops_in

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: <4918812C.2020405@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:45:00 -0500
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATH -mm -v2] Fix a race condtion of oops_in_progress

KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> As far as I know, barriers don't cause changes to be visible on other
>>>> CPUs faster too. It just guarantees corresponding operations after will
>>>> not get executed until that before have finished. And, I don't think we
>>>> need make changes to be visible on other CPUs faster.
>>> You're correct that barrier() has no impact on other CPUs.  wmb() and rmb() do. 
>>>   If we don't need to make changes visible any faster, what's the point in using 
>>> atomic_set()?  It's not any less racy.  atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() would be 
>>> less racy, but you're not using those.
>> In default bust_spinlocks() implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c,
>> atomic_inc() and atomic_dec_and_test() is used. Which is used by x86
>> too. In some other architecture, atomic_set() is used to replace
>> "oops_in_progress = <xxx>". So this patch fixes architectures which use
>> default bust_spinlocks(), other architectures can be fixed by
>> corresponding architecture developers.
> 
> I think Chris is right.
> So, I reccomend to read Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> 
> Almost architecture gurantee atomic_inc cause barrier implicitly.
> but not _all_ architecture.

The rmb() before atomic_read() is even more critical, since that's a 
non-barrier operation on nearly all platforms.

-- Chris
--
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/