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, 28 Mar 2010 20:45:13 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, adobriyan@...il.com Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects * Thomas Gleixner (tglx@...utronix.de) wrote: > B1;2005;0cOn Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > o Patch 4/6 looks good to me, and given that Thomas hasn't > > complained, I am guessing that he is OK with it. > > Looks sane at the first glance. Will go over it in detail tomorrow. > > > o Patch 6/6: Would it be possible to use the object_is_on_stack() > > function defined in include/linux/sched.h instead of passing > > in the flag on_stack to bdi_work_init()? It looks like > > fs/fs-writeback.c already includes include/linux/sched.h, so > > shouldn't be a problem from a #include-hell viewpoint. > > Well, I'm a bit wary about that. The reason is that we really want > the annotation of: > > init_on_stack(); > .... > destroy_on_stack(); > > instead of the confusing: > > init(); > .... > destroy_on_stack(); > > So having an automatism in the bdi_work_init() function will people > make forget to put the destroy_on_stack() annotation into it. > > The flag is horrible as well. How about this: > > /* helper function, do not use in code ! */ > __bdi_work_init(....., onstack) > { > .... > if (on_stack) { > work.state |= WS_ONSTACK; > init_rcu_head_on_stack(&work.rcu_head); > } else { > .... > } > > See, how this moves also the "work.state |= WS_ONSTACK;" line out of > the calling code. > > bdi_work_init(...) > { > __bdi_work_init(...., false); > } > > bdi_work_init_on_stack(...) > { > __bdi_work_init(...., true); > } > > > out of the code. > > To make it complete, please do not use the asymmetric: > > destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&work.rcu_head); > > Create a helper function: > > bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(...) > { > destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(work->rcu_head); > } > > That makes it way more readable and we did that with the other on > stack initializers as well. These changes are queued for v3. Thanks Thomas! Mathieu > > Thanks, > > tglx -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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