| 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: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:40:03 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: kernel list <list.kernel@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: vmlist_lock locking kernel list a écrit : > 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()). Maybe it is just me, but I like to know people names. Or maybe your name really is kernel list ? I wonder why a soft irq would want to lookup vm areas. (since vmalloc() from soft irq is *really* forbiden) Eric - 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