linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux headers: header file(s) changes to enable spinlock use jumplabel

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]

Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:21:16 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Raghavendra <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux headers: header file(s) changes to enable spinlock
 use jumplabel

On 02/20/2012 08:30 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:44:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2012 10:46 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> [...]

Hi Drew,
Thanks for the reply

> Hi Raghavendra,

> sorry I didn't get around to starting this discussion myself when
> I first touched the issue. I also bumped into it when attempting
> to rebase pvticketlocks, so I pinged Gleb with the idea to split
> the header. As he's said again now though, he wasn't sure if jump
> labels were necessary in the pvticketlock implementation. In the
> meantime I got busy with other stuff, and didn't get a chance to
> continue/expand the discussion.
>
> I actually think we could consider both of the issues separately
> though.

Right.

  Should we split jump_label.h to make sure we can include
> it where it could otherwise get the cyclic dependencies due to
> workqueue.h? The only argument I can see against that is that
> jumplabels may change again, and then we may hit another issue,
> then again, etc., but handling them like this case by case isn't
> very clean.

Hmm..Handling the way it is handled by me sometime looks ugly to me.
The patch I have posted is only important set of changes. But for
complete yesconfig to work, it still would require change something like
below I am attaching, which (needs 24 file changes) makes it more ugly.
Only point is I can continue testing paravirt spinlock on tip.

Perhaps we need jump_label.h to define a "minimal
> jump label", and then we can create an "extended jump label",
> which has rate limiting and other capabilities.
>

I completely agree. seeing that, you have not started that, it seems
it's good idea for me to take a look at that option, (but may be at
slower pace considering some changes I require (TODO) for kvm paravirt
spinlock).

> Drew
>
>
--->8---
---

View attachment "header_recursion_minor.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (8400 bytes)