linux-kernel - Re: [-mm PATCH] RCU: debug sleep check

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:	Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:56:46 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	dipankar@...ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH] RCU: debug sleep check

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:05:09 +0530
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com> wrote:

> Add a debug check for rcu read-side critical section code calling
> a function that might sleep which is illegal. The check is enabled only
> if CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP is set.
> 

Does this actually change anything?  rcu_read_lock is preempt_disable(), and
might_sleep() already triggers if called inside preempt_disable().

> -#define rcu_read_lock() __rcu_read_lock()
> +#define rcu_read_lock()	\
> +	do {	\
> +		rcu_add_read_count();	\
> +		__rcu_read_lock();	\

I don't have any __rcu_read_lock().  I guess this is against your
to-be-resent RCU patches?

> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_read_count);

Can have static scope.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/