linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod)

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: <1257482803.6956.4.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:46:43 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch]
 Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
 [00000000] code: rmmod)

On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 10:31 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>  
> > +/*
> > + * cpu_rq_lock - lock the runqueue a given task resides on and disable
> > + * interrupts. Note the ordering: we can safely lookup the cpu_rq without
> > + * explicitly disabling preemption.
> > + */
> > +static struct rq *cpu_rq_lock(int cpu, unsigned long *flags)
> > +	__acquires(rq->lock)
> > +{
> > +	struct rq *rq;
> > +
> > +	for (;;) {
> > +		local_irq_save(*flags);
> > +		rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > +		if (likely(rq == cpu_rq(cpu)))
> > +			return rq;
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void cpu_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> > +	__releases(rq->lock)
> > +{
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> The above code is totally garbage, cpu_rq(cpu) is constant.

No, that's not the garbage bit.  The true hazard of late late night is
that you can't _see_ anymore.  cpu_rq_lock + spin_unlock :)))))

Now I'm _really_ puzzled.  Embarrassing, but funny.

	-Mike

--
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/