linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:20:53 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     <peng.hao2@....com.cn>
Cc:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:09:43 +0800 (CST)
<peng.hao2@....com.cn> wrote:

> >We only do the check if the immediate double_lock_balance() released
> >the current task rq lock, but we don't take into account if it was
> >released earlier, which means it could have migrated and we never
> >noticed!
> >  
> double_lock_balance may release current rq's lock,but it just for get the locks of the two rq's in order
> and it immediately reacquire the current rq's lock before double_lock_balance returns.
> >I believe the code should look like this:
> >

Bah, I didn't even compile it. And thought it was
"double_lock_balance", and didn't notice it was double_unlock_balance()
(this is what I get for trying to do too much at once).

Sad part is, I noticed this back when I added reviewed-by, but then
looking at it again, I did the same mistake :-/

Yeah, never mind, it's fine, my original reviewed-by stands.

-- Steve