netdev - Re: [PATCH] INET : removes per bucket rwlock in tcp/dccp ehash table

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:	Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:15:00 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ak@...e.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] INET : removes per bucket rwlock in tcp/dccp ehash table

Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/04/2007 06:58 PM:

> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 11/04/2007 12:31 PM:

...

>> +static inline int inet_ehash_locks_alloc(struct inet_hashinfo *hashinfo)
>> +{

...

>> +	if (sizeof(rwlock_t) != 0) {

...

>> +		for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>> +			rwlock_init(&hashinfo->ehash_locks[i]);
> 
> 
> This looks better now, but still is doubtful to me: even if it's safe with
> current rwlock implementation, can't we imagine some new debugging or
> statistical code added, which would be called from rwlock_init() without
> using rwlock_t structure? IMHO, if read_lock() etc. are called in such a
> case, rwlock_init() should be done as well.


Of course I mean: if sizeof(rwlock_t) == 0.

 
Jarek P
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html