netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: disable preemption before call smp_processor

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:	Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: disable preemption before call smp_processor_id()

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 21:57:51 -0700

> If I cover preemptible RCU's semantics, a first cut comes out like this:
> 
>  * In non-preemptible RCU implementations (TREE_RCU and TINY_RCU), it
>  * is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section.  In
>  * preemptible RCU implementations (TREE_PREEMPT_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU)
>  * in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel builds, RCU read-side critical sections may
>  * be preempted, but explicit blocking is illegal.  Finally, in preemptible
>  * RCU implementations in real-time (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) kernel builds,
>  * RCU read-side critical sections may be preempted and they may also
>  * block, but only when acquiring spinlocks that are subject to priority
>  * inheritance.
> 
> Does that seem reasonable?

Sounds good to me.
--
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