linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] rcu/tree: handle VM stoppage in stall detection

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 13:00:29 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] rcu/tree: handle VM stoppage in stall detection

On (21/05/23 20:46), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> In theory, yes, sort of, anyway.  In practice, highly unlikely.
> The most plausible way for this to happen is for this code path to be
> delayed for a long time on a 32-bit system, so that jiffies+ULONG_MAX/2
> actually arrives.  But in that case, all sorts of other complaints
> would happen first.

I see.

> But I could make this a cmpxchg(), if that is what you are getting at.

No, it's good. I was just curious what scenario I was missing.