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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504072313540.3845@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 23:38:48 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Jason Low wrote:
> 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?
 
There is a simpler solution for this: Disable NOHZ for RT. Because
that's what 'always return "now + 1"' does at runtime just with more
overhead.

We need a smarter solution for RT to avoid the lock completely.

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/