netdev - Re: [PATCH] rhashtable-test: extend to test concurrency

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, 16 Aug 2015 23:46:28 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rhashtable-test: extend to test concurrency

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 08:12:35PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> > After having tested insertion, lookup, table walk and removal, spawn a
> > number of threads running operations on the same rhashtable. Each of
> > them will:
> 
> [..]
> 
> > +	if (down_interruptible(&startup_sem))
> > +		pr_err("  thread[%d]: down_interruptible failed\n", tdata->id);
> 
> Why _interruptible?
> 
> Seems this should use down() instead.

According to the comment in kernel/locking/semaphore.c, down() is
deprecated and one should use down_interruptible() or down_killable()
instead. Apart from that, I don't see any problem with using down()
here. If the call fails, the code is pointless if not even broken
anyway.

Cheers, Phil
--
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