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:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:55:22 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	linux-mm <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Paul Turner <>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Rik van Riel <>, Mel Gorman <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
	Hugh Dickins <>,
	Sasha Levin <>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, mempolicy: Introduce spinlock to read shared policy

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Going through some old emails before -rc1 rlease..
> What is the status of this patch? The patch that is reported to cause
> the problem hasn't been merged, but that mpol_misplaced() thing did
> happen in commit 771fb4d806a9. And it looks like it's called from
> numa_migrate_prep() under the pte map lock. Or am I missing something?

Andrew pinged both Ingo and I about it privately two weeks ago.  It 
probably doesn't trigger right now because there's no pte_mknuma() on 
shared pages (yet) but will eventually be needed for correctness.  So it's 
not required for -rc1 as it sits in the tree today but will be needed 
later (and hopefully not forgotten about until Sasha fuzzes again).

> See commit 9532fec118d ("mm: numa: Migrate pages handled during a
> pmd_numa hinting fault").
> Am I missing something? Mel, please take another look.
> I despise these kinds of dual-locking models, and am wondering if we
> can't have *just* the spinlock?

Adding KOSAKI to the cc.

This is probably worth discussing now to see if we can't revert 
b22d127a39dd ("mempolicy: fix a race in shared_policy_replace()"), keep it 
only as a spinlock as you suggest, and do what KOSAKI suggested in instead.  I don't think 
it's worth trying to optimize this path at the cost of having both a 
spinlock and mutex.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists