linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:17:25 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()

Hi Peter,

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> Warn when rcu_dereference() is not used in combination with rcu_read_lock()
>

According to Paul it is fine to use RCU primitives (when accompanied
with proper comments) when the read-size critical section is guarded
by spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqsrestore() instead of
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and writers synchronize with
synchronize_sched(), not synchronize_rcu(). Your patch will trigger
warnign on such valid usages.

-- 
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/