linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] rcu commits for 2.6.40

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: <20110513131218.GA7669@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2011 15:12:18 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] rcu commits for 2.6.40


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> I started bisecting this, and the two relevant endpoints:
> 
>   bad: 11c476f: net,rcu: convert call_rcu(prl_entry_destroy_rcu) to kfree
>  good: 0ee5623f: Linux 2.6.39-rc6
> 
> very clearly indicate that this is an RCU regression.

This might be the same one Yinghai found:

 e59fb3120bec: rcu: Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof

So with the config i sent it's definitely reproducible.

At first sight couldnt this be related not to barriers, but to not setting 
need_resched() like we did before?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/