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  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 13:38:36 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "yuwang.yuwang" <yuwang.yuwang@...baba-inc.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
 balance console writes

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:06:05 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:


> +		raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> +		waiter = console_waiter;
> +		console_owner = NULL;
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If there is a waiter waiting for us, then pass the
> +		 * rest of the work load over to that waiter.
> +		 */
> +		if (waiter)
> +			break;

OK, the spin_unlock() wont let the load leak. Thus it is fine as is.


> +			raw_spin_lock(&console_owner_lock);
> +			owner = console_owner;
> +			waiter = console_waiter;
> +			if (!waiter && owner && owner != current) {

But Mathieu Desnoyers pointed out that usage of variables within a
spinlock may be an issue. Although, it shouldn't affect the code as is,
I think I'll add back READ/WRITE_ONCE() just to be on the safe side.

I may add the waiter = READ_ONCE(console_waiter) to the first one too,
more as documentation. It should cause any issues to add it.

-- Steve



> +				console_waiter = true;
> +				spin = true;
> +			}
> +			raw_spin_unlock(&console_owner_lock);

Powered by blists - more mailing lists