[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9otmV1QCX29D_DXsHB-41puTKurWtyZ39huPZtD4mt5ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:17:20 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>,
Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] random: defer fast pool mixing to worker
On 2/14/22, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> to
> | - Does anything anywhere call get_random_xx() before the worker has a
> | chance to run?
>
> Once you queue a work item I don't think that the scheduler needs to put
> it on the CPU right away. It may have already have other tasks waiting
> including some with a RT priority.
> Also, the lock is irqsave() so they can be users in an interrupt
> handler. I remember the original reason why I made it irqsave is because
> something did kmalloc() and SLUB somehow asked for random bits.
Right. So there are two sides of the questions: 1) how bad is this
actual race, and are there any drivers that do regularly get bit by
this? 2) There's a largeish window between workqueue_init_early()
setting up the system highprio workqueue, and workqueue_init()
enabling queued workers to actually run. Interrupts also get enabled
in the interim. Does anything get bit by that window?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists