linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dax: Fix missed PMD wakeups

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: <CAPcyv4gUiDw8Ma9mvbW5BamQtGZxWVuvBW7UrOLa2uijrXUWaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:27:14 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boaz Harrosh <openosd@...il.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Barror <robert.barror@...el.com>,
        Seema Pandit <seema.pandit@...el.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax: Fix missed PMD wakeups

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:14 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 06:54:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 03-07-19 20:27:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > So I think we're good for all current users.
> >
> > Agreed but it is an ugly trap. As I already said, I'd rather pay the
> > unnecessary cost of waiting for pte entry and have an easy to understand
> > interface. If we ever have a real world use case that would care for this
> > optimization, we will need to refactor functions to make this possible and
> > still keep the interfaces sane. For example get_unlocked_entry() could
> > return special "error code" indicating that there's no entry with matching
> > order in xarray but there's a conflict with it. That would be much less
> > error-prone interface.
>
> This is an internal interface.  I think it's already a pretty gnarly
> interface to use by definition -- it's going to sleep and might return
> almost anything.  There's not much scope for returning an error indicator
> either; value entries occupy half of the range (all odd numbers between 1
> and ULONG_MAX inclusive), plus NULL.  We could use an internal entry, but
> I don't think that makes the interface any easier to use than returning
> a locked entry.
>
> I think this iteration of the patch makes it a little clearer.  What do you
> think?
>

Not much clearer to me. get_unlocked_entry() is now misnamed and this
arrangement allows for mismatches of @order argument vs @xas
configuration. Can you describe, or even better demonstrate with
numbers, why it's better to carry this complication than just
converging the waitqueues between the types?