linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] fix and improvements for percpu-rw-semaphores (was: brw

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210221910150.25995@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:36:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] fix and improvements for percpu-rw-semaphores (was:
 brw_mutex: big read-write mutex)

> > Ooooh. And I just noticed include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h which does
> > something similar. Certainly it was not in my tree when I started
> > this patch... percpu_down_write() doesn't allow multiple writers,
> > but the main problem it uses msleep(1). It should not, I think.
> > 
> > But. It seems that percpu_up_write() is equally wrong? Doesn't
> > it need synchronize_rcu() before "p->locked = false" ?
> > 
> > (add Mikulas)
> 
> Mikulas said something about doing an updated patch, so I figured I
> would look at his next version.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

The best ideas proposed in this thread are:

Using heavy/light barries by Lai Jiangshan. This fixes the missing barrier 
bug, removes the ugly test "#if defined(X86) ..." and makes the read path 
use no barrier instruction on all architectures.

Instead of rcu_read_lock, we can use rcu_read_lock_sched (or 
preempt_disable) - the resulting code is smaller. The critical section is 
so small that there is no problem disabling preemption.

I am sending these two patches. Linus, please apply them if there are no 
objections.

Mikulas
--
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/