linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] [GIT PULL] tracing: recursion and compile fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090420212523.GA5997@nowhere>
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:25:25 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [GIT PULL] tracing: recursion and compile fixes

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 05:14:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:44:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm, doesn't the trace wakeup test if the runqueue lock is locked or not?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- Steve
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, yes it does but that's not the first time we meet this problem
> > > > (sched switch event tracing recursions by the past). So either the
> > > > test doesn't work well or this is about another lock that
> > > > wake_up_common takes...
> > > 
> > > Ug, it is the task's rq lock. Not the current rq lock. wakeup takes the 
> > > runqueue lock of the task. The "runqueue_is_locked" only tests the lock of 
> > > current CPU, which is not what we can have.
> > 
> > 
> > You mean the lock held on the wait_queue for wake_up_trace() ?
> > 
> > void __wake_up(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
> > 			int nr_exclusive, void *key)
> > {
> > 	unsigned long flags;
> > 
> > 	spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > 	__wake_up_common(q, mode, nr_exclusive, 0, key);
> > 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> > }
> > 
> 
> No, I mean that we check the runqueue lock on the current CPU (there's a 
> runqueue for each CPU). The runqueue_is_locked tests only the lock for the 
> current cpu. But the wake up of a task grabs the runqueue of the lock the 
> task is on.
> 
> If we are on CPU0 and hold the runqueue lock of CPU1, and we wake up a 
> task on CPU1, we will deadlock. Even thought runqueue_is_locked passed. 
> Because the current runqueue lock is not part of this equation.


Oh I see :-/
And of course the check of every rq lock is not conceivable wrt the hot path
and in term of scalability.

 
> -- Steve
> 

--
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/