| 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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:17:31 -0600 From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com> To: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch? I recently noticed that when CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL is enabled the semantics change. From "include/linux/rwsem_rt.h": * Note that the semantics are different from the usual * Linux rw-sems, in PREEMPT_RT mode we do not allow * multiple readers to hold the lock at once, we only allow * a read-lock owner to read-lock recursively. This is * better for latency, makes the implementation inherently * fair and makes it simpler as well. How is this valid? It seems to me that the mainline kernel could have code paths that depend on having multiple threads of execution be able to hold the reader lock simultaneously. For example: thread A: take rw_semaphore X for reading take lock Y, modify data, release lock Y wake up thread B wait on conditional protected by lock Y free rw_semaphore X thread B: take rw_semaphore X for reading wait on conditional protected by lock Y send message to wake up thread A free rw_semaphore X In the regular kernel this would work, in the RT kernel it would deadlock. Does the RT kernel just disallow this sort of algorithm? Thanks, Chris -- 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