linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1428436643.2556.66.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:57:23 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Jason Low wrote:
> > The lock shouldn't be used in get_next_timer_interrupt() either right?
> > 
> > unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now)
> > {
> > ...
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> >         /*
> >          * On PREEMPT_RT we cannot sleep here. If the trylock does not
> >          * succeed then we return the worst-case 'expires in 1 tick'
> >          * value.  We use the rt functions here directly to avoid a
> >          * migrate_disable() call.
> >          */
> >         if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock))
> >                 return  now + 1;
> > #else
> 
> And how do you protect the walk of the timer wheel against a
> concurrent insertion/removal?

So I just wanted to mention that the issue also applies to
get_next_timer_interrupt(), in addition to run_local_timers(), but if we
really want to remove the lock there, can we always return "now + 1" for
PREEMPT_RT_FULL?

--
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/