linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/wait: Add add_wait_queue

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:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:32:11 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
        "Davi E. M. Arnaut" <davi@...ent.com.br>, davi@...desmares.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/wait: Add add_wait_queue_priority()

On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 21:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:27:59PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > > While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> > > which is used by fs/eventpoll.c and does something similar, except it
> > > doesn't keep the FIFO order.
> > 
> > It does, doesn't it? Except those so-called "exclusive" entries end up
> > in FIFO order amongst themselves at the *tail* of the queue, to be
> > woken up only after all the other entries before them *haven't* been
> > excluded.
> 
> __add_wait_queue_exclusive() uses __add_wait_queue() which does
> list_add(). It does _not_ add at the tail like normal exclusive users,
> and there is exactly _1_ user in tree that does this.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how this happened, but:
> 
>   add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> 
> and
> 
>   __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> 
> are not related :-(

I think that goes all the way back to here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/4/530

It was rounded up in commit d47de16c72and subsequently "cleaned up"
into an inline in wait.h, but I don't think there was ever a reason for
it to be added to the head of the list instead of the tail.

So I think we can reasonably make __add_wait_queue_exclusive() do
precisely the same thing as add_wait_queue_exclusive() does (modulo
locking).

And then potentially rename them both to something that isn't quite
such a lie. And give me the one I want that *does* actually exclude
other waiters :)

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5174 bytes)