linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ida: make ida_simple

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:16:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ida: make ida_simple_get/put() IRQ safe

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:11:49 -0700
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:01:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:33:11 -0700
> > Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > It's often convenient to be able to release resource from IRQ context.
> > > Make ida_simple_*() use irqsave/restore spin ops so that they are IRQ
> > > safe.
> > 
> > The patch also accidentally makes ida_simple_get() callable from
> > interrupt context.  That's a somewhat unreliable operation due to
> > -ENOMEM possibilities even with GFP_ATOMIC.
> 
> Hmmm... We can add a WARN_ON_ONCE() there but do we really care?  If
> the caller is using GFP_ATOMIC, it should be expecting unreliability.
> 

No, I don't think we care - I was just chin-scratching and augmenting
some deficient changeloggery.  Also, showing that I'd actually read the
thing ;)


--
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/