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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:46:07 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Chintan Pandya <chintan.pandya@...plus.com> Cc: Linux Upstream <linux.upstream@...plus.com>, "hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "mawilcox@...rosoft.com" <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] page-flags: Make page lock operation atomic On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:53:53PM +0000, Chintan Pandya wrote: > Currently, page lock operation is non-atomic. This is opening > some scope for race condition. For ex, if 2 threads are accessing > same page flags, it may happen that our desired thread's page > lock bit (PG_locked) might get overwritten by other thread > leaving page unlocked. This can cause issues later when some > code expects page to be locked but it is not. > > Make page lock/unlock operation use the atomic version of > set_bit API. There are other flag set operations which still > uses non-atomic version of set_bit API. Bit, that might be > the change for the future. > > Change-Id: I13bdbedc2b198af014d885e1925c93b83ed6660e That doesn't belong in patches. > Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya <chintan.pandya@...plus.com> NAK. This is bound to regress some stuff. Now agreed that using non-atomic ops is tricky, but many are in places where we 'know' there can't be concurrency. If you can show any single one is wrong, we can fix that one, but we're not going to blanket remove all this just because.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists