linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] workqueue: Fix irq inversion deadlock in manage

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: <20171009152959.GE3301751@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:29:59 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: Fix irq inversion deadlock in manage_workers()

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:24:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I think we did something similar to the rt_mutex in:
> 
>   b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe")
> 
> And I would not be entirely against doing the same for our normal mutex,
> but I've not really had time to read/think through this thread.

We may want to do that if there are other more valid cases but this
workqueue one shouldn't be the reason.  It's something which shouldn't
have been a mutex from the get-go.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun