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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220921220800.02c4c63e@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:08:00 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Use proper do_arch_spin_lock() API

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:48:41 -0400
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 9/21/22 18:17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>   	savedcmd_temp = savedcmd;
> >>   	savedcmd = s;
> >> -	arch_spin_unlock(&trace_cmdline_lock);
> >> +	do_arch_spin_unlock(&trace_cmdline_lock);
> >>   	free_saved_cmdlines_buffer(savedcmd_temp);
> >>   
> >>   	return 0;
> >> @@ -6373,10 +6369,10 @@ int tracing_set_tracer(struct trace_array *tr, const char *buf)
> >>   
> >>   #ifdef CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT
> >>   	if (t->use_max_tr) {
> >> -		arch_spin_lock(&tr->max_lock);
> >> +		do_arch_spin_lock(&tr->max_lock);  
> > Add preemption disabling.
> >  
> The pattern that I have seen so far is to disable preemption for 
> trace_cmdline_lock, but interrupt for max_lock. So should we also 
> disable interrupt here instead of preemption?
> 

Ah yes.

Thanks,

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ