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  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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:43:11 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Move preemption disabling out of
 __srcu_read_lock()

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:36:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:18:39AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Currently, __srcu_read_lock() cannot be invoked from restricted
> > > environments because it contains calls to preempt_disable() and
> > > preempt_enable(), both of which can invoke lockdep, which is a bad
> > > idea in some restricted execution modes.  This commit therefore moves
> > > the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() from __srcu_read_lock()
> > > to srcu_read_lock().  It also inserts the preempt_disable() and
> > > preempt_enable() around the call to __srcu_read_lock() in do_exit().
> > 
> > What restricted environments do you intend to invoke
> > __srcu_read_lock from?
> > 
> > This change seems fine, but I don't see any change in this patch series
> > that needs this, hence my curiosity.
> 
> Someone asked me for it, and now I cannot find it.  :-(
> 
> Something to the effect of when running unmapped during exception entry
> or something like that.  I guess one way to find out would be to remove
> the commit and see who complained, but on the other hand, it arguably
> makes more sense to have only the bare mechanism is __srcu_read_lock()
> and put the environmental protection into srcu_read_lock().

I agree; I just find the idea that someone would need to call
__srcu_read_lock rather than srcu_read_lock odd and worthy of further
understanding. :)
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists