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:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:17:50 +0100
From:   Julien Grall <>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
Cc:     Dave Martin <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching


On 05/04/2019 15:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-04-05 10:02:45 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
>> RT folks already saw this corruption because local_bh_disable() does not
>> preempt on RT. They are carrying a patch (see "arm64: fpsimd: use
>> preemp_disable in addition to local_bh_disable()") to disable preemption
>> along with local_bh_disable().
>> Alternatively, Julia suggested to introduce a per-cpu lock to protect the
>> state. I am thinking to defer this for a follow-up patch. The changes in
>> this patch should make it easier because we now have helper to mark the
>> critical section.
> A per-CPU lock? It has to be a raw_spinlock_t because a normal
> spin_lock() / local_lock() would allow scheduling and might be taken as
> part of the context switch or soon after.
raw_spinlock_t would not work here without disabling preemption. Otherwise you 
may end up to recurse on the lock and therefore deadlock. But then it raise the 
question of the usefulness of the lock here.

However, I don't really understand why allowing the scheduling would be a 
problem here. Is it a concern because we will waste cycle trying to restore/save 
a context that will be scratched as soon as we release the lock?


Julien Grall

Powered by blists - more mailing lists