| 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, 18 Nov 2013 14:58:41 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: anish singh <anish198519851985@...il.com> Cc: 韩磊 <bonben1989@...il.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: list_head and lock? On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:48:14PM -0800, anish singh wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:19 PM, 韩磊 <bonben1989@...il.com> wrote: > > when we delete,add,search,amend the list_head,should we use spinlock > > or rcu in case of conflicit to list_head??? > There is no implicit locking when we use 'list' api's.You should explicitly > do that AFAIK. See Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt for a summary of how to use RCU-protected linked lists. But yes, readers need to explicitly do rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), and updaters must coordinate with each others somehow, for example, explicitly using spinlocks. The list_head macros are about list manipulation and not so much about synchronization. Thanx, Paul -- 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