| 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: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:04:51 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Warn people about flush_scheduled_work() On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2009 23:02:51 schrieb Alan Stern: > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2009 22:33:38 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > > Consider using cancel_work_sync() or cancel_delayed_work_sync() > > > > instead. In most situations they will accomplish what you > > > > need. > > > > > > In which respect is cancel_work_sync() fundamentally safer? > > > If the work is already running and takes a lock you are holding, > > > then what? > > > > With cancel_work_sync() you know what locks the work item is going to > > take, since it's your work item. With flush_scheduled_work() you have > > no idea what locks will be needed by the items on the queue. They > > could come from anywhere. > > True, but what use is that if you don't know your call chain and the locks > it takes. Okay, clearly you have to know something about your call chain. The comment should be toned down a little bit. Alan Stern -- 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