linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/5] mutex: Disable preemtion between modifying lock->owner and locking/unlocking mutex

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, 28 Jan 2014 21:54:06 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman.Long@...com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
	chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/5] mutex: Disable preemtion between modifying
 lock->owner and locking/unlocking mutex

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:15AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> This RFC patch disables preemption between modifying lock->owner and
> locking/unlocking the mutex lock. This prevents situations where the owner
> can preempt between those 2 operations, which causes optimistic spinners to
> be unable to check if lock->owner is not on CPU. As mentioned in the
> thread for this v1 patchset, disabling preemption is a cheap operation.

In that same thread it was also said that this wasn't really an issue at
all. So what is the justification?

The patch is rather hideous.
--
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/