linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck

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: <20110720200841.GP2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:08:41 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org,
	edward.tomlinson@...o.bombardier.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads
 trainwreck

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:39:25PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > If my guess is correct, then the minimal non-RCU_BOOST fix is #4 
> > (which drags along #3) and #6.  Which are not one-liners, but 
> > somewhat smaller:
> > 
> >  b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h |   12 ++++++------
> >  b/kernel/softirq.c        |   12 ++++++++++--
> >  kernel/rcutree_plugin.h   |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> That's half the patch size and half the patch count.
> 
> PeterZ's question is relevant: since we apparently had similar bugs 
> in v2.6.39 as well, what changed in v3.0 that makes them so urgent
> to fix?
> 
> If it's just better instrumentation that proves them better then i'd 
> suggest fixing this in v3.1 and not risking v3.0 with an unintended 
> side effect.

Agreed, a fix in v3.1 and a backport to v3.0-stable after serious testing
would make a lot of sense.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/