linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v3

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: <51A318BF.7010109@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 May 2013 10:26:39 +0200
From:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, robclark@...il.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks,
 v3

Op 27-05-13 10:00, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:24:38PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>> +- Functions to only acquire a single w/w mutex, which results in the exact same
>>>> +  semantics as a normal mutex. These functions have the _single postfix.
>>> This is missing rationale.
>> trylock_single is useful when iterating over a list, and you want to evict a bo, but only the first one that can be acquired.
>> lock_single is useful when only a single bo needs to be acquired, for example to lock a buffer during mmap.
> OK, so given that its still early, monday and I haven't actually spend
> much time thinking on this; would it be possible to make:
> ww_mutex_lock(.ctx=NULL) act like ww_mutex_lock_single()?
>
> The idea is that if we don't provide a ctx, we'll get a different
> lockdep annotation; mutex_lock() vs mutex_lock_nest_lock(). So if we
> then go and make a mistake, lockdep should warn us.
>
> Would that work or should I stock up on morning juice?
>
It's easy to merge unlock_single and unlock, which I did in the next version I'll post.
Lockdep will already warn if ww_mutex_lock and ww_mutex_lock_single are both
used. ww_test_block_context and ww_test_context_block in lib/locking-selftest.c
are the testcases for this.

The locking paths are too different, it will end up with doing "if (ctx == NULL) mutex_lock(); else ww_mutex_lock();"

~Maarten

--
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/