linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack

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: <20150905081836.2967d80d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:18:36 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep()
 hack

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 12:30:59 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> So the problem we need to solve is:
> 
> retry:
> 	lock(B);
> 	if (!try_lock(A)) {
> 		unlock(B);
> 		cpu_relax();
> 		goto retry;
> 	}
> 
> So instead of doing that proposed magic boost, we can do something
> more straight forward:
> 
> retry:
> 	lock(B);
> 	if (!try_lock(A)) {
> 		lock_and_drop(A, B);
> 		unlock(A);
> 		goto retry;
> 	}
> 
> lock_and_drop() queues the task as a waiter on A, drops B and then
> does the PI adjustment on A. 

That was my original solution, and I believe I added patches to do
exactly that to the networking code in the past. I remember writing
that helper function such that on non PREEMPT_RT it was a nop.

I even had that solution in my slides at LinuxCon/LinuxPlumbers ;-)


But then I talk about dcache.c. Take a look at that file, and the
complexity of that. Is it safe to take the inode and dcache parent
locks after you unlock the other locks?

-- 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/