linux-kernel - Re: [fix] Too async libata breakage

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: <20090108143127.437c15de@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:31:27 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [fix] Too async libata breakage

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:20:38 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com> wrote:

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>> Additional async_synchronize_full() helps and box boot to the end.
> >>>       
> >
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > can you add the patch below to your tree? This makes the
> > async_synchronize_full() a real absolute async barrier, rather than
> > just synchronizing the work scheduled upto the starting point.
> > It's a bit too much for some cases (so later on I might introduce
> > the softer synchronization again) but it solves some real problems
> > for people so this should go into -rc1 please...
> >
> > >From ca1827b142e41b54c612026b3c0b5d239f21a715 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > >2001
> > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:35:11 -0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] async: make async_synchronize_full() more
> > serializing
> >
> > turns out that there are real problems with allowing async
> > tasks that are scheduled from async tasks to run after
> > the async_synchronize_full() returns.
> >
> > This patch makes the _full more strict and a complete
> > synchronization. Later I might need to add back a lighter
> > form of synchronization for other uses.. but not right now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/async.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/async.c b/kernel/async.c
> > index 9737338..64cc916 100644
> > --- a/kernel/async.c
> > +++ b/kernel/async.c
> > @@ -206,7 +206,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_special);
> >  
> >  void async_synchronize_full(void)
> >  {
> > -	async_synchronize_cookie(next_cookie);
> > +	do {
> > +		async_synchronize_cookie(next_cookie);
> > +	} while (!list_empty(&async_running)
> > || !list_empty(&async_pending)); }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_synchronize_full);
> >  
> >   
> I have to say that ohci/firescope is nice
> poof right up: dmesg shows up:
> attach is the results.
> unfortunantly nothing different than
> what the boot screen shows.

just to make clear: this is with the patch right?
because if not... try that..

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/