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: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:54:24 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com> Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>, Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>, Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] percpu_stats: Simple per-cpu statistics count helper functions Hello, On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:51:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>+ /* > >>+ * If a statistics count is in the middle of being updated, it > >>+ * is possible that the above clearing may not work. So we need > >>+ * to double check again to make sure that the counters are really > >>+ * cleared. Still there is a still a very small chance that the > >>+ * second clearing does not work. > >>+ */ > >>+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > >>+ unsigned long *pstats = per_cpu_ptr(pcs->stats, cpu); > >>+ int stat; > >>+ > >>+ for (stat = 0; stat< pcs->nstats; stat++, pstats++) > >>+ if (*pstats) > >>+ *pstats = 0; > >>+ } > >I don't think this is acceptable. > > I am not sure what you mean here by not acceptable. Please enlighten me on > that. Hmmm... I thought that was pretty clear. Try-twice-and-we-are-probably-okay is simply not acceptable. Please make it watertight. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists