linux-kernel - Re: use of preempt_count instead of in

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]

Message-ID: <20080321105311.1a55cc0f@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:11 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:17:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> in_atomic() is for core kernel use only.  (...)

Then why is it made available to drivers through <linux/hardirq.h>? If
it's such a dangerous macro to call from drivers, it shouldn't be made
available, or at the very least there should be a big fat warning in
<linux/hardirq.h> that drivers aren't supposed to use it. This would
have avoided the 23 uses cases in drivers we have right now.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/