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  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:	Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:21:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
cc:	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Does the RT kernel just disallow this sort of algorithm?
> 
> Yes. For a good reason. Let's add thread C
> 
> A    	   	B		C
> down_read(X)
> 				down_write(X)
> lock(Y)
> modify data
> unlock(Y)
> wake(B)
> 		down_read(X)
> 
> Due to the mainline rwsem fairness semantics:
> 
> A holds X, C is blocked on A and B is blocked on A.
> 
> Deadlock, without RT and the single reader restriction being involved.
> 
> So RT does not violate ANY of the existing mainline semantics, it just
> imposes a performance impact of not allowing multiple readers.

@peterz: It might be worthwhile to have a CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y dependent
mode which restricts concurrent readers to 1 in mainline to catch this
kind of stuff. Hmm?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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