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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 05:11:48 +0100 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org> Cc: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 02:22 +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and releases it > > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining > > about scheduling in atomic context. > > > > To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove that > > bit spinlock completely and use a bit flag instead. > > It also does get_cpu_var() in map(), put_cpu_var() in unmap(). Bah, I forgot to mention the config dependent rwlock, it's held across map()/unmap() as well, so there are two more hurdles, not one. -Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists