linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix CPU spinlock lockups on secondary CPU bringup

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:46:48 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix CPU spinlock lockups on secondary CPU bringup

Le mercredi 22 juin 2011 à 11:55 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux a
écrit :
> From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
> 
> Secondary CPU bringup typically calls calibrate_delay() during its
> initialization.  However, calibrate_delay() modifies a global variable
> (loops_per_jiffy) used for udelay() and __delay().
> 
> A side effect of 71c696b1 (calibrate: extract fall-back calculation
> into own helper) introduced in the 2.6.39 merge window means that we
> end up with a substantial period where loops_per_jiffy is zero.  This
> causes the spinlock debugging code to malfunction:
...

>  
> +	loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
>  	printed = true;
>  }

To be 100% safe, I would use

	ACCESS_ONCE(loops_per_jiffy) = lpj;

But I assume no current gcc would be that stupid ;)



--
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/