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, 9 Nov 2017 11:23:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Peter Xu <>
Cc:, Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Radim Kr??m???? <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/swait: allow swake_up() to return

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> Let swake_up() to return whether any of the waiters is waked up. One use
> case of it would be:
>   if (swait_active(wq)) {
>     swake_up(wq);
>     // do something when waiter is waked up
>     waked_up++;
>   }

The word is 'woken', and no that doesn't work. All it says is that there
was a waiter, not that you were to one to wake it. Another concurrent
wakeup might have done so.

> Logically it's possible that when reaching swake_up() the wait queue is
> not active any more, and here doing something like waked_up++ would be
> inaccurate.  To correct it, we need an atomic version of it.
> With this patch, we can simply re-write it into:
>   if (swake_up(wq)) {
>     // do something when waiter is waked up
>     waked_up++;
>   }
> After all we are checking swait_active() inside swake_up() too.

We're not in fact; you've been staring at old code; see commit:

  35a2897c2a30 ("sched/wait: Remove the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up*()")

Also, you're changing the interface relative to the regular wait
interface. The two should be similar wherever possible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists