linux-kernel - Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:27:35 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And if I make the scheduling-clock interrupt send extra wakeups to the RCU
> grace-period kthread when needed, things work even with CPU hotplug going.
> 
> The "when needed" means any time that the RCU grace-period kthread has
> been sleeping three times as long as the timeout interval.  If the first
> wakeup does nothing, it does another wakeup once per second.
> 
> So it looks like this change makes an existing problem much worse, as
> opposed to introducing a new problem.

I have a vague idea about a possible race window. Have you been
observing this on PPC or x86?

The reason I'm asking is that PPC (obviously) allows for more races :-)