linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] Linux Kernel Markers

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:	Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:39:54 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, mmlnx@...ibm.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, dsmith@...hat.com, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Linux Kernel Markers - Support Multiple Probes

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:21:00 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:

> > > + */
> > > +void marker_probe_cb(const struct marker *mdata, void *call_private,
> > > +	const char *fmt, ...)
> > > +{
> > > +	va_list args;
> > > +	char ptype;
> > > +
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > 
> > What are the preempt_disable()s doing in here?
> > 
> > Unless I missed something obvious, a comment is needed here (at least).
> > 
> 
> They make sure the teardown of the callbacks can be done correctly when
> they are in modules and they insure RCU read coherency. Will add
> comment.

So shouldn't it be using rcu_read_lock()?  If that does not suit, should we
be adding new rcu primitives rather than open-coding and adding dependencies?
--
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/