linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] eventpoll: Replace rwlock with spinlock

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]

Message-ID: <20250826084320.XeTd6XAK@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 10:43:20 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
	Martin Karsten <mkarsten@...terloo.ca>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] eventpoll: Replace rwlock with spinlock

On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 02:46:34PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> The ready event list of an epoll object is protected by read-write
> semaphore:
> 
>   - The consumer (waiter) acquires the write lock and takes items.
>   - the producer (waker) takes the read lock and adds items.
> 
> The point of this design is enabling epoll to scale well with large number
> of producers, as multiple producers can hold the read lock at the same
> time.
> 
> Unfortunately, this implementation may cause scheduling priority inversion
> problem. Suppose the consumer has higher scheduling priority than the
> producer. The consumer needs to acquire the write lock, but may be blocked
> by the producer holding the read lock. Since read-write semaphore does not
> support priority-boosting for the readers (even with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y),
> we have a case of priority inversion: a higher priority consumer is blocked
> by a lower priority producer. This problem was reported in [1].
> 
> Furthermore, this could also cause stall problem, as described in [2].
> 
> Fix this problem by replacing rwlock with spinlock.

Hi Christian,

May I know your plan with this patch? Are you still waiting for something?

You may still understandably be paranoid about epoll due to the last
regression. But it's been weeks, and this patch is quite simple, so I start
to wonder if it is forgotten.

Nam