linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Annotate rwsem ownership transfer by setting RWSEM_OWNER

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: <4a3fbd3c-3cfa-f9c2-c73c-fa6d9c55c2d5@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 May 2018 14:45:12 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Annotate rwsem ownership
 transfer by setting RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN

On 05/15/2018 02:02 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 07:58:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:38:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * Owner value to indicate the rwsem's owner is not currently known.
>>> + */
>>> +#define RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN	((struct task_struct *)-1)
>> It might be nice to comment that this works and relies on having that
>> ANON_OWNER bit set.
> I'd rather change the definition to be ((struct task_struct *)2)
> otherwise this is both reader-owned and anonymously-owned which doesn't
> make much sense.

Thinking about it a bit more. I can actually just use one special bit
(bit 0) to designate an unknown owner. So for a reader-owned lock, it is
just owner == 1 as the owners are unknown for a reader owned lock. For a
lock owned by an unknown writer, it is (owner & 1) && (owner != 1). That
will justify the use of -1L and save bit 1 for future extension.

Cheers,
Longman