linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:53:20 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove_all()

Hello, David.

Sorry about the delay.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:24:18PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the list_for_each_entry doesn't seem to be clearing
> > everything.  I've seen "warning: recover_list_count 39" at the end of that
> > function.
> 
> I don't want to pretend to understand the internals of this idr code, but
> it's not clear that idr_for_each is equivalent to idr_for_each_entry when
> iterating through all id values.  The "++id" in idr_for_each_entry looks
> like it could lead to some missed entries?  The comment about idr_get_next
> returning the "next number to given id" sounds like an entry with an id of
> "++id" would be missed.

The function description is misleading.  The function does search
inclusive range and needs explicit cursor increment to make progress.
Weird that it doesn't work.  Looking into it.  I'll write when I know
more.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun
--
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/