linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v1 5/9] ima: allocating iint improvements

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: <CACLa4ptFgmCL7Z4e-YO9XJ_zkr=kOHSJ7cA8u3DPvVc-2LBfRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:58:54 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v1 5/9] ima: allocating iint improvements

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
>

>  static struct rb_root integrity_iint_tree = RB_ROOT;
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(integrity_iint_lock);
> +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(integrity_iint_lock);
>  static struct kmem_cache *iint_cache __read_mostly;

Has any profiling been done here?   rwlocks have been shown to
actually be slower on multi processor systems in a number of cases due
to the cache line bouncing required.  I believe the current kernel
logic is that if you have a short critical section and you can't show
profile data the rwlocks are better, just stick with a spinlock.
--
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/