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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 2014 23:35:09 +0000
From:	Al Viro <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	Dave Jones <>, Chris Mason <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Dâniel Fraga <>,
	Sasha Levin <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:09:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:
> > The generic code does that mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write
> > dance adound the call to setxattr, and that in turn does
> >
> >         while (ACCESS_ONCE(mnt->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD)
> >                 cpu_relax();
> >
> > with preemption explicitly disabled.
> Btw, I see no reason why mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write disables
> preemption. They don't care, they just care about the ordering of the
> write counts and the MNT_WRITE_HOLD bit. It's the code that sets the
> bit that should care, afaik. But maybe I'm missing something.

Er...  There's much more direct reason - suppose we get a timer interrupt
right in the middle of mnt_drop_write().  And lost the timeslice.
On UP we have mnt->mnt_writers--, with no locks held.  On SMP we have
this_cpu_dec() instead, also without any locks.  You really don't want to
lose the timeslice in the middle of either...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists