linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] smp_call_function

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: <1269359358.5109.94.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:49:18 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp_call_function_many SMP race

On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 08:33 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 22:15 +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > > 
> > > It turns out commit c0f68c2fab4898bcc4671a8fb941f428856b4ad5 (generic-ipi:
> > > cleanup for generic_smp_call_function_interrupt()) is at fault. It removes
> > > locking from smp_call_function_many and in doing so creates a rather
> > > complicated race. 
> > 
> > A rather simple question since my brain isn't quite ready processing the
> > content here..
> > 
> > Isn't reverting that one patch a simpler solution than adding all that
> > extra logic? If not, then the above statement seems false and we had a
> > bug even with that preempt_enable/disable() pair.
> > 
> > Just wondering.. :-)
> 
> If I understand correctly, if you want to fix it by reverting patches,
> you have to revert back to simple locking (up to and including
> 54fdade1c3332391948ec43530c02c4794a38172).  And I believe that the poor
> performance of simple locking was whole reason for the series of patches.

Right, then c0f68c2 did not in fact cause this bug..
--
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/