linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on sched_attr::sched

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: <20190904155229.GT2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:52:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
        bristot@...hat.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        vpillai@...italocean.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on
 sched_attr::sched_period

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:24:18AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 01:30:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 06:16:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:16:23 +0200
> > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > in sched_dl_period_handler(). And do:
> > > > 
> > > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > > 	max = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_max) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > > > 	min = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_min) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > > > +	preempt_enable();
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I'm curious. Doesn't the preempt_disable/enable() also add
> > > compiler barriers which would remove the need for the READ_ONCE()s here?
> > 
> > They do add compiler barriers; but they do not avoid the compiler
> > tearing stuff up.
> 
> Neither does WRITE_ONCE() on some possibly buggy but currently circulating
> compilers :(

Yes, I'm aware :/