linux-kernel - Re: [RT PATCH 2/2] timers: wakeup all timer waiters without holding the base lock

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:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:21:51 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RT PATCH 2/2] timers: wakeup all timer waiters without holding
 the base lock

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:19:47 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On 07/14/2016 06:09 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:05:04 +0200
> > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >   
> >> There should be no need to hold the base lock during the wakeup. There
> >> should be no boosting involved, the wakeup list has its own lock so it
> >> should be safe to do this without the lock.
> >>
> >> Cc: stable-rt@...r.kernel.org  
> > 
> > Nothing against this patch, but as you marked it for stable, can you
> > add to the change log what issue you had that caused you to make this
> > change?  
> 
> #1 was noticed while looking at the code, it *might* happen.
> #2 Is not strictly required for back porting.
> I just don't see a reason for holding the lock, that is all.
> 

I have no problem backporting them. I just thought that the change log
might have been missing some useful information.

-- Steve