linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler

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: <20160901065738.GH10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:57:38 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 07:47:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> > OK, for giggles, could you (or Balbir) check what happens if you take
> > that sync out?

> The problem is no amount of testing can tell you it works for sure :-)

It breaking does prove the negative though, so still interesting.

> I would be nervous not having a real full sync in _switch. All we have
> along the scheduler path is lwsync's and our isync based load construct
> for spin_lock, I'm not sure what other assumptions we have around that
> sync in there...

Only one way to find out  ;-)

I'm not saying you should commit that change, just curious if (and how
fast) it would come apart.

At the very least we could update the comment that goes with that sync.