linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/rwsem: Add a new RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY

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: <764ff902-2e06-6cdd-dc06-4d69312989b6@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 May 2018 13:56:35 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/rwsem: Add a new RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY_OWNED
 flag

On 05/15/2018 01:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:52:06PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 05/15/2018 01:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:38:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>>>> index 30465a2..b7208e1 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>>>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ void up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>  void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>>>> -	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != current);
>>>> +	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON((sem->owner != current) &&
>>>> +			     !rwsem_has_anonymous_owner(sem->owner));
>>> Why? Don't we always do percpu_rwsem_acquire() before up?
>>>
>> This is to allow an unlock to happen in the unknown owner state. Yes, it
>> is not necessary to fix the percpu-rwsem problem. It is there just in
>> case a rwsem will be released in that state in the future.
> Let's not allow that until there's a very good reason for it.

Sure. I can remove that.

Cheers,
Longman