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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:23:26 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Thiago Rafael Becker <>
Cc:     NeilBrown <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3, V2] kernel: Move groups_sort to the caller of

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:03:02PM -0200, Thiago Rafael Becker wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > It must be relatively common to sort an already-sorted array.  I wonder
> > if something like this patch would be worthwhile?
> The bug happens when two threads enter sort_groups for the same group info
> in parallel, and one thread starts overwriting values that another thread
> may already have "heapified" or sorted.
> Thread A                  Thread B
> Enter groups_sort
>                           Enter groups_sort
> .
> .
> .
> Return from groups_sort
>                           .
>                           .
>                           .
>                           Return from groups_sort
> Wouldn't this patch just make both threads see the structure as unsorted and
> sort them?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  I wasn't commenting on the original bug (and
I believe your analysis to be correct unless there's some locking which
prevents two calls to group_sort from happening at the same time).

I was wondering about whether our sort() implementation is the best that
it could possibly be, and whether having the trait of not modifying an
already-sorted array is worthwhile (eg it would not cause cachelines to
enter the dirty state if they were already clean).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists