linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] rculist: add list_for_each_entry_from

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

Date:   Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:43:08 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rculist: add list_for_each_entry_from_rcu()

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:20:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 02:31:30PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_from_rcu() is an RCU version of
> > list_for_each_entry_from().  It walks a linked list under rcu
> > protection, from a given start point.
> > 
> > It is similar to list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu() but starts *at*
> > the given position rather than *after* it.
> > 
> > Naturally, the start point must be known to be in the list.
> 
> I'd suggest giving an explicit advisory comment to clarify and suggest
> correct usage:
> 
> "This would typically require either that you obtained the node from a
> previous walk of the list in the same RCU read-side critical section, or
> that you held some sort of non-RCU reference (such as a reference count)
> to keep the node alive *and* in the list."
> 
> (Feel free to wordsmith the exact wording, but something like that seems
> like it would help people understand how to use this correctly, and make
> it less likely that they'd use it incorrectly.)

What Josh said!  Could you also contrast this with the existing
list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu() macro in the header comment as well
as in the commit log?

							Thanx, Paul