linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

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: <20170727143308.GV3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:33:08 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:37:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:56:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:14:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > This horse is already out, so trying to shut the gate won't be effective.
> > > 
> > > So I'm not convinced it is. The mprotect() hack isn't portable as we've
> > > established and on x86 where it does work, it doesn't (much) perturb
> > > tasks not related to our process because we keep a tight mm_cpumask().
> > 
> > Wrong.  People are using it today, portable or not.  If we want them
> > to stop using it, we need to give them an alternative.  Period.
> 
> What's wrong? The mprotect() hack isn't portable, nor does it perturb
> other users much.
> 
> I would much rather they use this than your
> synchronize_sched_expedited() thing. Its much better behaved. And
> they'll run into pain the moment they start using ARM,PPC,S390,etc..

What is wrong is that we currently don't provide them a reasonable
alternative.

							Thanx, Paul