linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <571999D2.4090803@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:26:10 +0800
From:	Xunlei Pang <xpang@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for
 deadline tasks

Hi Peter,

On 2016/04/20 at 21:49, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> +	/* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */
>>>  	struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost;
>>> +	struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy;
>>>  struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
>>>  {
>>> +	if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy)
>>>  		return NULL;
>>>  
>>> +	return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy,
>>> +				struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task;
>>>  }
>> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?
> I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better.

What do you think this version of PATCH1 and PATCH2?
If you are fine with it, I can sent it out as v4 separately, then we can focus on the issue in PATCH5.

Thanks!

>
> Regards,
> Xunlei