netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/12] ptp: Added a brand new class driver for ptp clocks.

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:	Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:34:38 +0200
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] ptp: Added a brand new class driver for ptp
 clocks.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:11:30PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Richard Cochran
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(clocks_lock); /* protects 'clocks' */
> 
> Doesn't appear that clocks is manipulated at atomic context.  Mutex instead?
...
> If the spinlock is changed to a mutex that is held for the entire
> function call, then the logic here can be simpler.

Grant,

I am working on another go at this patch series. Stupid question:

The caller of ptp_clock_register(), which takes the clocks_lock, is
always a module_init() function. Is this always a safe context in
which to call mutex_lock?

Thanks,

Richard

--
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