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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:32:08 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, toshi.kani@...com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Hello, On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:37:23PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:39 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > After thinking it harder, I still couldn't see ABBA here ... > > the active protection taken here is for "probe/release" which will not > be waited for removing something like "online" under cpu#? Or my > assumption that s_active for different files are different locks are > completely wrong? Or I missed something else? I'm probably confused about the locking. I was thinking a scenario like the following. A. CPU on/offline grabs s_active protection of online node grabs cpu subsys mutex perform on/offline releases cpu subsys mutex releases s_active protection of online node B. CPU release grabs s_active protection of release node grabs cpu subsys mutex performs removal of the CPU removes the online node releases cpu subsys mutex releases s_active protection of release node A nests cpu subsys mutex under s_active of the online node. B nests s_active of the online node under the cpu subsys mutex. What am I missing? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists