linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix pgd

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1102160002300.26192@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:03:30 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix pgd_lock deadlock

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:26:35PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Another thing. You check for in_interrupt(), but what makes sure that
> > the code which takes pgd_lock is never taken with interrupts disabled
> > except during early boot ?
> 
> It's perfectly fine to take pgd_lock with irq disabled, as long as you
> don't pretend to take the page_table_lock too after that. So that's
> not a concern.
> 
> I removed _irqsave from all pgd_lock, and I doubt there's any code
> protected by pgd_lock that runs with irq disabled, but if there is,
> it's still ok and it especially shouldn't have used _irqsave.
> 
> The only real issue here to sort out, is if pgd_lock is ever taken
> from irq or not, and to me it looks like in_interrupt() should trigger
> if it is ever taken from irq, so it won't go unnoticed for long if
> this isn't ok.

I assume you run it with a lockdep enabled kernel as well, right ?

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/