linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT 1/5] Input: implement proper locking in input core

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: <200707240152.47006.dtor@insightbb.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:52:45 -0400
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT 1/5] Input: implement proper locking in input core

Hi Jeff, 

On Tuesday 24 July 2007 01:35, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> spin_lock_irq() should generally be avoided.
> 
> In cases like the first case -- input_repeat_key() -- you are making 
> incorrect assumptions about the state of interrupts.  The other cases 
> are probably ok, but in general spin_lock_irq() has a long history of 
> being very fragile and quite often wrong.
> 
> Use spin_lock_irqsave() to be safe.  Definitely in input_repeat_key(), 
> but I strongly recommend removing spin_lock_irq() from all your patches 
> here.
>

Thasnk you for looking at the patches. Actually I went back and forth
between spin_lock_irq and spin_lock_irqsave.. I will change back to
irqsave version, it is indeed safer.

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/