linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up()

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: <20160218081326.GF5972@X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:13:26 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	willy@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@...il.com, jack@...e.cz,
	sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, peter@...leysoftware.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within
 up()

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:40:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Mucking with the semaphore implementation just because printk() is
> terminally broken shite really doesn't fly.

Jan is currently working on the terminally broken shite, and I expect it
makes printk() robuster. I just tried this patch because I though the
semaphore also need to be fixed and furthermore it can fix a deadlock by
removing the waiting within trylock. I think it's reasonable. Wrong?