linux-kernel - [KJ]use mutex instead of a binary semaphore

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070416175551.GB9314@arun.site>
Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:25:51 +0530
From:	Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>
To:	Kernel Janitors <kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org>
Cc:	Kernel Newbies <kernelnewbies@...linux.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [KJ]use mutex instead of a binary semaphore

	As the new mutex primitive is now in place, I read,it is advised 
not to use binary semaphore for mutual exclusion.

while looking at different place where a binary semaphore is initialized,
I came accross bd_mount_sem.

I read a thread on LKML few months back related to the bd_mount_sem 
and realized that there are cases where a binary semaphore  can not be replaced by a mutex.
The reason being mutex has a sense of ownership, i.e. 
a mutex can only be unlocked from the context
 from which it was locked.

e.g bd_mount_sem in the block device structure is 
used to make sure no new mounts happen on bdev
 in between freeze_bdev and thaw_bdev().

so locking is done in freeze_bdev &
 unlocking in thaw_bdev these can be from different context i guess..

is my understandig correct..
CMIIW..
would appreciate some pointers on how to identify such cases.. 

-- 
Milind Arun Choudhary
-
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/