linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Export current_is

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]

Message-Id: <20061206234942.79d6db01.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 23:49:42 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>,
	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Export current_is_keventd() for libphy

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:42:07 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> But I wouldn't want to think about an implementation as long as we have
> that WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL horror in there.  Can we just nuke that?  Only
> three drivers need it and I bet they can be modified to use the usual
> mechanisms.

I guess I don't understand exactly what problem the noautorel stuff is
trying to solve.  It _seems_ to me that in all cases we can simply stuff
the old `data' field in alongside the controlling work_struct or
delayed_work which wants to operate on it.

Bridge is the simple case..

diff -puN net/bridge/br_private.h~bridge-avoid-using-noautorel-workqueues net/bridge/br_private.h
--- a/net/bridge/br_private.h~bridge-avoid-using-noautorel-workqueues
+++ a/net/bridge/br_private.h
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ struct net_bridge_port
 	struct timer_list		message_age_timer;
 	struct kobject			kobj;
 	struct delayed_work		carrier_check;
+	struct net_device		*carrier_check_dev;
 	struct rcu_head			rcu;
 };
 
diff -puN net/bridge/br_if.c~bridge-avoid-using-noautorel-workqueues net/bridge/br_if.c
--- a/net/bridge/br_if.c~bridge-avoid-using-noautorel-workqueues
+++ a/net/bridge/br_if.c
@@ -83,14 +83,11 @@ static void port_carrier_check(struct wo
 	struct net_device *dev;
 	struct net_bridge *br;
 
-	dev = container_of(work, struct net_bridge_port,
-			   carrier_check.work)->dev;
-	work_release(work);
-
+	p = container_of(work, struct net_bridge_port, carrier_check.work);
+	dev = p->carrier_check_dev;
 	rtnl_lock();
-	p = dev->br_port;
-	if (!p)
-		goto done;
+	if (!dev->br_port)
+		goto done;	/* Can this happen? */
 	br = p->br;
 
 	if (netif_carrier_ok(dev))
@@ -280,7 +277,8 @@ static struct net_bridge_port *new_nbp(s
 	p->port_no = index;
 	br_init_port(p);
 	p->state = BR_STATE_DISABLED;
-	INIT_DELAYED_WORK_NAR(&p->carrier_check, port_carrier_check);
+	p->carrier_check_dev = dev;
+	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&p->carrier_check, port_carrier_check);
 	br_stp_port_timer_init(p);
 
 	kobject_init(&p->kobj);
_


What am I missing?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/