linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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: <200901291213.32959.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:13:32 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

On Thursday 29 January 2009 06:14:40 Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's vulnerable to the same deadlock, I think?  Suppose we have:
...
> - A calls work_on_cpu() and takes woc_mutex.
> 
> - Before function_which_takes_L() has started to execute, task B takes L
>   then calls work_on_cpu() and task B blocks on woc_mutex.
> 
> - Now function_which_takes_L() runs, and blocks on L

Agreed, but now it's a fairly simple case.  Both sides have to take lock L, and both have to call work_on_cpu.

Workqueues are more generic and widespread, and an amazing amount of stuff gets called from them.  That's why I felt uncomfortable with removing the one known problematic caller.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/