[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1191420442.5599.12.camel@lappy>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:07:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: kaigai@...gai.gr.jp, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO 05/15](repost) Domain transition handler functions.
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 22:59 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Hello.
>
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> > If so, you can apply RCU instead to avoid read lock
> > when scanning the list, like:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > list_for_each_entry(...) {
> > ....
> > }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
>
> Can I sleep between rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() ?
> As far as I saw, rcu_read_lock() makes in_atomic() true, so I think I can't sleep.
>
> If I use RCU, I have to give up " [TOMOYO 13/15] Conditional permission support"
> because tmy_check_condition() can sleep.
You can indeed not sleep in an rcu_read_lock() section. However, you
could grab a reference on an item, stop the iteration, drop
rcu_read_lock. Do you thing, re-acquire rcu_read_lock(), drop the ref,
and continue the iteration.
Also, how do you avoid referencing dead data with your sll? I haven't
actually looked at your patches, but the simple scheme you outlined
didn't handle the iteration + concurrent removal scenario:
thread 1 thread 2
foo = ptr->next
< schedule >
killme = ptr->next (same item)
ptr->next = ptr->next->next;
kfree(killme)
< schedule >
foo->bar <-- *BANG*
-
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