linux-kernel - Re: Question regarding mutex locking

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <474F63A5.2000907@serpentine.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:13:09 -0800
From:	Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@...pentine.com>
To:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question regarding mutex locking

Larry Finger wrote:
> If a particular routine needs to lock a mutex, but it may be entered with that mutex already locked,
> would the following code be SMP safe?
> 
> hold_lock = mutex_trylock()

The common way to deal with this is first to restructure your function 
into two.  One always acquires the lock, and the other (often written 
with a "__" prefix) never acquires it.  The never-acquire code does the 
actual work, and the always-acquire function calls it.

You then refactor the callers so that you don't have any code paths on 
which you can't predict whether or not the lock will be held.

	<b
-
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/