In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock Currently, the destruction of the waiter queue is suppressed for rqspinlock in cases where a deadlock is detected. Deadlock checks happen relatively frequently (on entry for AA, within 1ms for ABBA), and waiter threads may not be involved in locking scenarios involving deadlocks. Thus, it is useful to not flush the queue and let other waiters take a stab at acquiring the lock after we detect a deadlock and exit. However, we need to follow the same logic as what we did previously for the waitq_timeout label: reset the tail, and if we cannot, signal the next waiter appropriately. In case of deadlocks, this signal would just mark the MCS node as unlocked, and in case of timeouts, it would signal RES_TIMEOUT_VAL. The difference thus is in the value propagated, which decides whether the queue remains active or gets flushed. Not doing the tail reset, and waiting for...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock Currently, the destruction of the waiter queue is suppressed for rqspinlock in cases where a deadlock is detected. Deadlock checks happen relatively frequently (on entry for AA, within 1ms for ABBA), and waiter threads may not be involved in locking scenarios involving deadlocks. Thus, it is useful to not flush the queue and let other waiters take a stab at acquiring the lock after we detect a deadlock and exit. However, we need to follow the same logic as what we did previously for the waitq_timeout label: reset the tail, and if we cannot, signal the next waiter appropriately. In case of deadlocks, this signal would just mark the MCS node as unlocked, and in case of timeouts, it would signal RES_TIMEOUT_VAL. The difference thus is in the value propagated, which decides whether the queue remains active or gets flushed. Not doing the tail reset, and waiting for...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock Currently, the destruction of the waiter queue is suppressed for rqspinlock in cases where a deadlock is detected. Deadlock checks happen relatively frequently (on entry for AA, within 1ms for ABBA), and waiter threads may not be involved in locking scenarios involving deadlocks. Thus, it is useful to not flush the queue and let other waiters take a stab at acquiring the lock after we detect a deadlock and exit. However, we need to follow the same logic as what we did previously for the waitq_timeout label: reset the tail, and if we cannot, signal the next waiter appropriately. In case of deadlocks, this signal would just mark the MCS node as unlocked, and in case of timeouts, it would signal RES_TIMEOUT_VAL. The difference thus is in the value propagated, which decides whether the queue remains active or gets flushed. Not doing the tail reset, and waiting fo

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock Currently, the destruction of the waiter queue is suppressed for rqspinlock in cases where a deadlock is detected. Deadlock checks happen relatively frequently (on entry for AA, within 1ms for ABBA), and waiter threads may not be involved in locking scenarios involving deadlocks. Thus, it is useful to not flush the queue and let other waiters take a stab at acquiring the lock after we detect a deadlock and exit. However, we need to follow the same logic as what we did previously for the waitq_timeout label: reset the tail, and if we cannot, signal the next waiter appropriately. In case of deadlocks, this signal would just mark the MCS node as unlocked, and in case of timeouts, it would signal RES_TIMEOUT_VAL. The difference thus is in the value propagated, which decides whether the queue remains active or gets flushed. Not doing the tail reset, and waiting...