linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] ipc: sem preempt improve

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: <4A8807A3.3080604@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:20:35 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>,
	Pierre Peiffer <peifferp@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] ipc: sem preempt improve

On 08/11/2009 01:09 PM, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> The strange sysv semaphore wakeup scheme has a kind of busy-wait lock
> involved, which could deadlock if preemption is enabled during the
> "lock".
>
> It is an implementation detail (due to a spinlock being held) that this
> is actually the case. However if "spinlocks" are made preemptible, or if
> the sem lock is changed to a sleeping lock for example, then the wakeup
> would become buggy. So this might be a bugfix for -rt kernels.
>
> Imagine waker being preempted by wakee and never clearing IN_WAKEUP --
> if wakee has higher RT priority then there is a priority inversion deadlock.
> Even if there is not a priority inversion to cause a deadlock, then there
> is still time wasted spinning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin<npiggin@...e.de>
>    
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
--
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/