linux-kernel - Re: 0087-rcu-Use-a-raw_spinlock

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, 15 Apr 2020 15:34:23 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: 0087-rcu-Use-a-raw_spinlock_t-for-kfree-batching.patch

On 2020-04-05 06:53:43 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Mike,

> Just a heads up wrt $subject...
> 
> I had done the same in my 5.6 tree, but then 5.7 came along, and I had
> to revisit due to 34c881745549e adding an allocation under that lock
> with irqs disabled.  The same commit that added the lock added this.
> 
> 	local_irq_save(flags);  // For safely calling this_cpu_ptr().
> 
> Whacking that instead of converting the lock cures 5.6 and 5.7 woes.

So I think you are telling me that I made the lock raw and then they
added in v5.7 a __get_free_page() call in
kfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk() which is invoked from the free path.

This is indeed not something that made me happy. Now let me think about
this for a moment…

> 	-Mike

Sebastian