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  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:   Sun, 3 May 2020 13:05:24 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Jason Baron' <>,
        "" <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "Alexander Viro" <>, Heiher <>,
        Roman Penyaev <>,
        Khazhismel Kumykov <>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] epoll: ensure ep_poll() doesn't miss wakeup events

From: Jason Baron
> Sent: 01 May 2020 20:16
> Now that the ep_events_available() check is done in a lockless way, and
> we no longer perform wakeups from ep_scan_ready_list(), we need to ensure
> that either ep->rdllist has items or the overflow list is active. Prior to:
> commit 339ddb53d373 ("fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of nested
> epoll"), we did wake_up(&ep->wq) after manipulating the ep->rdllist and the
> overflow list. Thus, any waiters would observe the correct state. However,
> with that wake_up() now removed we need to be more careful to ensure that
> condition.

I'm wondering how much all this affects the (probably) more common
case of a process reading events from a lot of sockets in 'level'

Even the change to a rwlock() may have had an adverse effect
on such programs.

In 'level' mode it doesn't make any sense to have multiple
readers of the event queue.


Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists