linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts"

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: <20191210232655.GA80975@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:26:55 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        will@...nel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in
 IRQ contexts"


* Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:

> This ended up causing some noise in places such as rxrpc running in softirq.
> 
> The warning is misleading in this case as the mutex trylock and unlock
> operations are done within the same context; and therefore we need not
> worry about the PI-boosting issues that comes along with no single-owner
> lock guarantees.
> 
> While we don't want to support this in mutexes, there is no way out of
> this yet; so lets get rid of the WARNs for now, as it is only fair to
> code that has historically relied on non-preemptible softirq guarantees.
> In addition, changing the lock type is also unviable: exclusive rwsems
> have the same issue (just not the WARN_ON) and counting semaphores
> would introduce a performance hit as mutexes are a lot more optimized.
> 
> This reverts commit 5d4ebaa87329ef226e74e52c80ac1c62e4948987.

Not sure where that SHA1 came from (it's not in Linus's tree), the right 
one is:

    a0855d24fc22: ("locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts")

I've fixed the changelog accordingly.

Thanks,

	Ingo