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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:02:11 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:12 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > I think the conversion Linus proposed is pretty feasible. I went > > through the read_lock sites and most of them are protecting function > > calls which we already use under rcu_read_lock() in other places like > > find_task* and thread or pid iterators. > > > > There are a few non obvious ones in signal.c and posix-cpu-timers.c > > (what a surprise) but nothing looks too scary. > > > > If nobody beats me I'm going to let sed loose on the kernel, lift the > > task_struct rcu free code from -rt and figure out what explodes. > > Things like sched.c:tg_set_bandwidth() take the tasklist_lock in > read-mode to exclude tasks being added concurrently to avoid > sched_rt_can_attach() races with tg_has_rt_tasks(). Yeah, forgot to mention sched.c, but that's solvable > Possibly the cgroup stuff has a smaller lock to use for this. Worth checking. Thanks, tglx -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists