| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:44:40 -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 03:05:08 +0530 Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:56:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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(). > > It makes a difference if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n. AFAICS, preempt_disable() > is a nop then and rcu needs its own check for sleeping while > in read-side critical section. Right. I think enough people run with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y to make this change rather unnecessary. And if there are developers out there who are testing their code without an effective CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP, then *that* is what we need to fix, no? - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists