linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount

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:	Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:36:39 +0530
From:	Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
 update of refcount

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> There's one exception - basically, we decide to put duplicates of
>> reference(s) we hold into (a bunch of) structures being created.  If
>> we decide that we'd failed and need to roll back, the structures
>> need to be taken out of whatever lists, etc. they'd been already
>> put on and references held in them - dropped.  That removal gets done
>> under a spinlock.  Sure, we can string those structures on some kind
>> of temp list, drop the spinlock and do dput() on everything in there,
>> but it's much more convenient to just free them as we are evicting
>> them, doing dput() as we go.  Which is safe, since we are still have
>> the references used to create these buggers pinned down.

Dropping the spinlocks means more cores; unfortunately, a quad-core
seems to be the limit. Users must divide their time between reading
history and contributing to the present: some amount of persistent
data is a must on every user's machine. Pixel seems to be heading in
the wrong direction: that's what is stressing us out.

Ram
--
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/