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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:46:50 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,,,, Cong Wang <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Mel Gorman <>, Michal Hocko <>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        "yuwang.yuwang" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn about allocations which stall for too long

On Wed 2017-11-01 11:36:47, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:45 +0100
> Petr Mladek <> wrote:
> > My current main worry with Steven's approach is a risk of deadlocks
> > that Jan Kara saw when he played with similar solution.
> And if there exists such a deadlock, then the deadlock exists today.

The patch is going to effectively change console_trylock() to
console_lock() and this might add problems.

The most simple example is:

	    console_trylock() was SAFE.

	   console_lock() cause DEADLOCK!

Sure, we could detect this and avoid waiting when
console_owner == current. But does this cover all
situations? What about?


console_lock()          func()
  console->write()        take_lockA()
    func()		    printk()
			      busy wait for console_lock()


By other words, it used to be safe to call printk() from
console->write() functions because printk() used console_trylock().
Your patch is going to change this. It is even worse because
you probably will not use console_lock() directly and therefore
this might be hidden for lockdep.

BTW: I am still not sure how to make the busy waiter preferred
over console_lock() callers. I mean that the busy waiter has
to get console_sem even if there are some tasks in the workqueue.

> > But let's wait for the patch. It might look and work nicely
> > in the end.
> Oh, I need to write a patch? Bah, I guess I should. Where's all those
> developers dying to do kernel programing where I can pass this off to?

Yes, where are these days when my primary task was to learn kernel
hacking? This would have been a great training material.

I still have to invest time into fixing printk. But I personally
think that the lazy offloading to kthreads is more promising
way to go. It is pretty straightforward. The only problem is
the guaranty of the takeover. But there must be a reasonable
way how to detect that the system heart is still beating
and we are not the only working CPU.

Best Regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists