linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery

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: <20161008140136.GG3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 8 Oct 2016 16:01:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery

On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hmm. I'm not a great fan of this, because that requires an conditional
> unlock mechanism.
> 
>        res = trylock_recursive(lock);
>        if (res == FAILED)
>        	       goto out;
>        .....
> 
>        if (res == SUCCESS)
>        	       unlock(lock);
> 
> While if you actually keep track of recursion you can do:
>   
>       if (!trylock_recursive(lock))
> 		goto out;
> 
>       ....
> 
>       unlock_recursive(lock);
> 
> or even:
> 
>      lock_recursive(lock);
> 
>      unlock_recursive(lock);
> 
> That's making lock/trylock and unlock symetric, so its obvious in the
> source what's going on and the recursion tracking allows for better
> debugability.

Hurm,. so I thought that in general we disliked recursive locking
because it quickly turns in to a horrible mess.

Adding such primitives makes it 'easy' to use recursive locking and then
where does it stop?