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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:33:20 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scenario TREE07 with CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=n?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 08:47:58AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And there is one more issue with this code.  Someone invoking
> > get_state_synchronize_rcu_expedited() in one task might naively expect
> > that calls to synchronize_rcu_expedited() in some other task would cause
> > a later poll_state_synchronize_rcu_expedited() would return true.
> > 
> > Except that if CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and there is only one CPU, those
> > calls to synchronize_rcu_expedited() won't be helping at all.
> > 
> > I could imagine poll_state_synchronize_rcu_expedited() setting a
> > global flag if there is only one CPU, which could be checked by
> > __synchronize_rcu_expedited() and reset.
> > 
> > Is there a better way?
> 
> I would tend to think that in this case, it's the responsibility of the
> caller to make sure that the task supposed to start the exp GP has a chance
> to run (cond_resched(), etc...).

Hahahahahahaha!

The same problem arises for poll_state_synchronize_rcu() and friends
on a single-CPU CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y system.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists