linux-kernel - [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120314170736.617746873@linutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:44:22 -0000
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

This series consists of two parts:

     1) Consolidate seqlocks and seqcount instead of having two
     	implementations for the counter functionality

     2) Extend seqlocks API and convert the open coded seqlocks
     	in fs_struct and dentry to that.

The main motivation of this change is to get rid of open coded
seqlocks as they are difficult to handle in the real time patch,
because the retry loops can cause live locks there, when the writer
side gets preempted. RT needs to take the lock so the writer gets
boosted and out of the way. With open coded seqlocks consisting of a
spinlock and a seqcount we have no idea which lock to acquire.

Aside of that replacing open coded constructs with proper functions is
a worthwhile cleanup by itself.

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/