netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: Replace spin_unlock

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:31:50 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, dave@...olabs.net,
        manfred@...orfullife.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with
 lock/unlock pair

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> pair.  This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in
> do_task_dead() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
> This should be safe from a performance perspective because the lock is
> this tasks ->pi_lock, and this is called only after the task exits.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index e91138fcde86..6dea3d9728c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3461,7 +3461,8 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
>          * is held by try_to_wake_up()
>          */
>         smp_mb();
> -       raw_spin_unlock_wait(&current->pi_lock);
> +       raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
> +       raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);

Does the raw_spin_lock()/raw_spin_unlock() imply an smp_mb() or stronger?
Maybe it would be clearer to remove the extra barrier if so.

     Arnd