linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] pipe: Fixes [ver #2]

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:28:40 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pipe: Fixes [ver #2]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:55 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Is it worth reverting:
>
>         commit f94df9890e98f2090c6a8d70c795134863b70201
>         Add wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll_locked()
>
> since you changed the code that was calling that new function and so it's no
> longer called?

You are sure you won't want that for the notification queue cases? I
guess they'll never want to "sync" part..

Looking at the regular pipe read/write code, maybe we'll want to try
it again - do the wakeup while we already have the spinlock, rather
than later. But I have this suspicion that that might just then push
things into mutex contention, so who knows..

Regardless, it's not going to happen for 5.5, so I guess we could
revert it and if we ever end up trying it again we can resurrect it.

              Linus