linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism for x86

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: <20180926150059.ua5576guhns5osgj@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:01:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism for x86

On 2018-09-26 13:01:17 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In particular this ordering ensures a concurrent unlock cannot trigger
> the uncontended handoff. Also it ensures that if the xchg() happens
> after a (successful) trylock, we must observe that LOCKED bit.

so I backported a bunch of atomic files and qspinlock back to v4.9-RT in
order to get these patches applied. The backported kernel booted and
showed the same symptomps within seconds (those I reported last FR).
With those three patches ontop I have the Core2Duo 10 minutes in
testing without any issues…

Sebastian