| 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: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:21:05 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ... On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:28:21AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:24:58AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote: ... > > Before Calling msg_unlock() they call ipc_rcu_getref() that increments a > > refcount in the rcu header for the msg structure. This guarantees that > > the the structure won't be freed before they relock it. Once the > > structure is relocked by ipc_lock_by_ptr(), they do the symmetric > > operation i.e. ipc_rcu_putref(). ... > which seems to suggest "out" is an RCU protected pointer, so, I > thought these refcounts were for something else. But, after looking > at how it's used it turns out to be ~90% wrong: probably 9 out of 10 > places use refcouning around this, so, these rcu_read_locks() don't > work here at all. So, probably I miss something again, but IMHO, > these rcu_read_locks/unlocks could be removed here or in ... ...So I missed it again: after all this RCU protection works before and after refcounting. Sorry, 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists