linux-kernel - Re: a competition when some threads acquire futex

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:   Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:06:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "chengjian (D)" <cj.chengjian@...wei.com>, huawei.libin@...wei.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: a competition when some threads acquire futex

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:56:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Right, but even if it was a coherent patch, I'm not sure it makes sense.
> 
> futex_wait() / futex_wake() don't make ordering guarantees and in
> general you don't get to have wakeup preemption if you don't run a
> PREEMPT kernel.
> 
> So what makes this wakeup so special? Any changelog would need to have a
> convincing argument.

Also, even on !PREEMPT, if that wakeup sets NEED_RESCHED, the return to
userspace after futex_wake() should reschedule.


So I'm really not getting it.