linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] notifier: Make atomic_notifiers use raw

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]

Message-ID: <20210806180242.GB2184@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:02:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] notifier: Make atomic_notifiers use raw_spinlock

On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 04:07:18PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> What do we do with this?
> Do we merge this as-is, add another "robust atomic notifier" using only
> raw_spinlock_t for registration and notification (for only
> cpu_pm_notifier_chain) instead of switching to raw_spinlock_t for all
> atomic notifier in -tree?

Right, so the problem I see with this is that
notifier_chain_{,un}register() are O(n). Hardly something we should be
putting under raw_spin_lock :/