linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writer lock backend

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: <5118EA6A.9040002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:26:10 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...k.pl, sbw@....edu,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writer
 lock backend

On 02/11/2013 06:11 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> We can use global rwlocks as shown below safely, without fear of deadlocks:
>>
>> Readers:
>>
>>          CPU 0                                CPU 1
>>          ------                               ------
>>
>> 1.    spin_lock(&random_lock);             read_lock(&my_rwlock);
>>
>>
>> 2.    read_lock(&my_rwlock);               spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> The lock order on CPU 0 is unsafe if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> and on CPU 1 if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 

Right..

> I presume you were specifically excluding these situations?
>

Yes.. Those cases are simple to find out and fix (by changing the
lock ordering). My main problem was with CPU 0 and CPU 1 as shown above..
... and using a global rwlock helps ease that part out.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/