[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710032319.ABF69743.VJQMLHFOFOtFOS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:19:20 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Cc: 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.
Hello.
Thank you for pointing out.
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Currently, TOMOYO Linux avoids read_lock, on the assumption that
> > (1) First, ptr->next is initialized with NULL.
> > (2) Later, ptr->next is assigned non-NULL address.
> > (3) Assigning to ptr->next is done atomically.
> (4) wmb after asigning ptr->next
> (5) rmb before reading ptr->next
Excuse me, but I didn't understand why (4) and (5) are needed.
append_function() {
down(semaphore_for_write_protect);
...
ptr = head;
while (ptr->next) ptr = ptr->next;
ptr->next = new_entry;
...
up(semaphore_for_write_protect);
}
read_function() {
for (ptr = head; ptr; ptr = ptr->next) {
...
}
}
Are (4) and (5) needed even when (3) is exclusively protected by down() and up() ?
Regards.
-
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