linux-kernel - Re: Documentation/credentials.txt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100424004617.GB21297@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:46:17 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Documentation/credentials.txt

Quoting Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 06:55:33PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > In the section 'ACCESSING ANOTHER TASK'S CREDENTIALS', the file
> > Documentation/credentials.txt says:
> > 
> > > A function need not get RCU read lock to use __task_cred() if it is holding a
> > > spinlock at the time as this implicitly holds the RCU read lock.
> > 
> > AIUI, that is not actually right any more, is it?  A spinlock does not
> > suffice as it does not necessarily imply an RCU read-side critical section
> > (anymore).  Of course the spinlock specifically protecting updates would
> > suffice, but that's not what this is saying.
> > 
> > Am I way off base?
> 
> You are absolutely correct, good catch!!!
> 
> Now, a spinlock still does imply an RCU read-side critical section given
> the following configuration options:
> 
> o	!CONFIG_PREEMPT
> 
> o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TREE_RCU
> 
> o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TINY_RCU
> 
> However, relying on this is usually bad practice, as such code is prone
> to failure given the following configuration options:
> 
> o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> 
> o	CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (given the -rt patchset)
> 
> And when I get my act together and complete CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU,
> then CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU will also invalidate
> the assumption that holding a spinlock acts as an RCU read-side
> critical section.
> 
> Did you want to submit a patch for this?

Yup, sent, thanks.

-serge
--
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/