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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 17:29:39 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion. On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:24:41AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > This is true, but I don't see how it is relevant. > At some point, each thread will find that the table they have just > locked for their search key, has a NULL 'future_tbl' pointer. > At the point, the thread can know that the key is not in any table, > and that no other thread can add the key until the lock is released. The updating of future_tbl is not synchronised with insert threads. Therefore it is entirely possible that two inserters end up on different tables as their "latest" table. This must not be allowed to occur. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists