linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v6 10/13] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy

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

Message-ID: <20170407233528.GB14673@fury>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:35:28 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 10/13] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure
 rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:59PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > With the ultimate goal of keeping rt_mutex wait_list and futex_q
> > waiters consistent we want to split 'rt_mutex_futex_lock()' into finer
> 
> I want to be clear that I understand why this patch is needed - as it actually
> moves both the waiter removal and the rt_waiter freeing under the hb lock while
> you've been working to be less dependent on the hb lock.
> 
> Was inconsistency of the rt_mutex wait_list and the futex_q waiters a problem
> before this patch series, or do the previous patches make this one necessary?

Ah, this is a follow-on to the issue described in 7 of 10. Nevermind.

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center