linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask

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:	Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:49:57 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask_t
 on stack

Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Btw, for the general case, instead of forcing everyone to duplicate, how 
>> about:
>>
>> cpumask_var_t cpus;
>>
>> with_cpumask(cpus) {
>>    ... code to populate cpus
>>    smp_call_function_some(...);
>> } end_with_cpumask(cpus);
>>
>> Where with_cpumask() allocates cpus, and uses a mutex + static fallback 
>> on failure.
>>     
>
> I'd prefer not to hide deadlocks that way :(
>
> I'll re-battle with that code to neaten it.  There are only a few places
> which have these kind of issues.
>
>   

cpuvar_get_maybe_mutex_lock(...);
...
cpuvar_put_maybe_mutex_unlock(...);

?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/