linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section?

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:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:37:28 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical
 section?

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I saw those, he posted 'needs testing' patches. He still behaved
> passive-aggressively, pretending that it was some difficult task to
> perform, as if we were pulling his teeth.

I need your review of those. I will rediff as soon as rc1 is out to
send something that can be put into -next. Please tell me until then if
the approach is ok. I dont think we can do anything in the merge window.

> The thing is, we should not be forced to shout at him at all: Christoph's
> should be _proactive_ in addressing the shortcomings that were readily
> pointed out literally years ago during review in a friendly fashion,
> instead of wasting a lot of people's time trying to argue around it...

I have fixed all the issues that Steven pointed out in the past about
suspicious __this_cpu operations a long time ago. He seemed to want to
implement the checks at that point. Not that difficult if one adds new
variants of this_cpu operations. Which was an issue initially. The
irqsafe_ this_cpu variants were nixed as the time because it was seen
to be too complicated.

--
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/