linux-kernel - Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line

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:	Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:38:58 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, aquini@...hat.com,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket
 lock out of line

On 02/28/2013 04:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm not seeing any real reason the permission checking couldn't be
> done just under the RCU lock, before we get the spinlock. Except for
> the fact that the "helper" routines in ipc/util.c are written the way
> they are, so it's a layering violation. But I really think that would
> be a *reasonably* low-hanging fruit thing to do.

I could see doing the permission checks under a seq lock.

If the permissions, or any other aspect of the semaphore
array changed while we were doing our permission check,
we can simply jump back to the top of the function and
try again.

Protection against IPC_RMID (removal of the semaphore
block) can probably be done with RCU.

The ugliness of using two kinds of protection may be
necessary, since permissions can be modified in-place,
and RCU does not seem to do in-place modification...

I have been staring at the code for a bit this afternoon,
and have yet to come up with a nicer idea :(

I am always open to suggestions, though :)

> Changing the locking itself to be more fine-grained, and doing it
> across many different ipc semaphores would be a major pain. So I do
> suspect that the work Michel Lespinasse did is probably worth doing
> anyway in addition to at least trying to fix the horrible lack of
> scalability of the code a bit.

That would certainly be the easy fix.

--
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/