linux-kernel - Re: 64-bit ppc rwsem

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: <20100823.151853.108794567.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulus@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 64-bit ppc rwsem

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:01:25 +1000

> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:44 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> * Alpha has an optimization for the uniprocessor case, where the atomic
>> instructions get turned into nonatomic additions. The spinlock based
>> version uses no locks on UP but disables interrupts for reasons I don't
>> understand (nothing running at interrupt time should try to access an rwsem).
>> Should the generic version do the same as Alpha?
> 
> I've seen drivers in the past do trylocks at interrupt time ... tho I
> agree it sucks.

Recently there was a thread where this was declared absolutely illegal.

Maybe it was allowed, or sort-of worked before, and that's why it's
accounted for with IRQ disables in some implementations.  I don't
know.
--
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/