linux-kernel - Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181009095835.GE9130@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:58:35 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
        claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
        alessio.balsini@...il.com, bristot@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, henrik@...tad.us,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

On 09/10/18 11:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > The main concerns I have with the current approach is that, being based
> > on mutex.c, it's both
> > 
> >  - not linked with futexes
> >  - not involving "legacy" priority inheritance (rt_mutex.c)
> > 
> > I believe one of the main reasons Peter started this on mutexes is to
> > have better coverage of potential problems (which I can assure everybody
> > it had). I'm not yet sure what should we do moving forward, and this is
> > exactly what I'd be pleased to hear your opinions on.
> 
> Well that, and mutex was 'simple', I didn't have to go rip out all the
> legacy PI crud.

Indeed.

> If this all ends up working well, the solution is 'simple' and we can
> simply copy mutex to rt_mutex or something along those lines if we want
> to keep the distinction between them. Alternatively we simply delete
> rt_mutex.

Ah.. right.. sounds *scary*, but I guess it might be an option after
all.

> Thanks for reviving this.. it's been an 'interesting' year and a half
> since I wrote all this and I've really not had time to work on it.

n/p, it has been a long standing thing to look at for me as well. Thanks
again for sharing your patches!