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  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:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:21:00 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and
 unify their usage

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 12:24:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:02:43 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Which leaves us with sparc, arm, mips, sh and powerpc.
> > > 
> > > sh is almost dead, and powerpc can be fixed, which I guess leaves us
> > > with sparc, arm and mips.  
> > 
> > If we want to stick with the current srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(),
> > you mean?  I would like that sort of outcome, at least assuming we are not
> > hammering any of the architectures.
> 
> I would go with the local_inc approach, and even add a
> srcu_read_un/lock_nmi() that does that if you want. Probably should add
> lockdep to detect if the _nmi calls is ever used along with non _nmi
> calls and complain about that.

Would it be reasonable to also add a check for non-_nmi calls being
used in both NMI and non-NMI contexts?

> But this will be something for the next merge window, not the one
> coming up.

Completely agreed!

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists