linux-kernel - Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler

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]

Message-ID: <20150306140347.64cfcad1@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:03:47 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:35:23 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:


> Indeed, the compiler should never reorder loads/stores from/to
> same memory location from a program order POV. What I had in mind
> is a bit more far-fetched though: it would involve having the compiler
> reorder this load after a store to another memory location, which
> would in turn allow another execution context (interrupt or thread)
> to corrupt the list.

You mean on another CPU? Because the code you are worried about has
interrupts disabled.

-- Steve
--
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/