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]
Message-ID: <20190502114258.GB7323@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 13:42:59 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, jack@...e.com,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RT WARNING] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) !=
 current) with fsfreeze (4.19.25-rt16)

On 05/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But this all is cosmetic, it seems that we can remove ->rw_sem altogether
> but I am not sure...

I mean, afaics percpu_down_read() can just do

	wait_event(readers_block == 0);

in the slow path, while percpu_down_write()

	wait_even_exclusive(xchg(readers_block, 1) == 0);

we do not really need ->rw_sem if we rely on wait_queue_head.


But in fact, either way it seems that we going to implement another simple
"non owner" read/write lock, so perhaps we should do this explicitly?

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ