linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] IPMI: Don't grab locks in run-to-completion mode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080213152212.814e1868.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:22:12 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	minyard@....org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kbaidarov@...mvista.com,
	openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] IPMI: Don't grab locks in run-to-completion mode

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:27:49 -0600
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:

> This patch prevents deadlocks in IPMI panic handler caused by msg_lock
> in smi_info structure and waiting_msgs_lock in ipmi_smi structure.

Again, what are the newly-added barrier()s for?  Was cpu_relax()
intended?

If a barrier indeed was intended then, as always, each one should have
a comment explaining why it is there.  Because it is frequently hard to
determine what the programmer was trying to do.
--
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/