| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a574553e0612072307v766c3742pd3b4c46fb4fd0470@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 02:07:50 -0500 From: "kernel list" <list.kernel@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: list.kernel@...il.com Subject: vmlist_lock locking My understanding is that get_vm_area_node etc. can't be called in interrupt context because vmlist_lock is obtained with read_lock / write_lock. I am wondering if it makes sense to use read_lock_bh / write_lock_bh so that get_vm_area_node can be called in soft interrupt context. All the code executed when holding vmlist_lock is walking through the list, so it shouldn't change the behavior. If it does make sense, BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) can be changed to BUG_ON(in_irq()). - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists