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]

Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:08:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, will.deacon@....com,
        mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism for
 x86

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> 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…

Remember that 4.14 took almost 8 hours to fail, so I'd recommend not to
cheer too much. Let's see what it tells us in 48 hours.

Thanks,

	tglx