linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK

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: <20070219110021.GA2190@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:00:22 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S\. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net/bridge/br_if.c: don't use _WORK_NAR

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:43:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Afaics, noautorel work_struct buys nothing for "struct net_bridge_port".
>
> If del_nbp()->cancel_delayed_work(&p->carrier_check) fails, port_carrier_check
> may be called later anyway. So the reading of *work in port_carrier_check() is
> equally unsafe with or without this patch.

I think this _WORK_NAR is to give some additional
control, but also is more logical: it lets to decide
when the work_struct is really release-able (and it's
definitely not before work function is called, as
without noautorel).

So, even if this functionality isn't used now, I can't
see what changing this could buy.

Regards,
Jarek P. 
-
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/