| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20080324124229.5d49ded6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:42:29 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet) Cc: stern@...land.harvard.edu, khali@...ux-fr.org, mb@...sch.de, hmh@....eng.br, david-b@...bell.net, rpurdie@...ys.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, geert@...ux-m68k.org Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:34:49 -0600 corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet) wrote: > Discourage people from using in_atomic() > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> > > diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h > index 4982998..3d196cb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h > +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ > #define in_softirq() (softirq_count()) > #define in_interrupt() (irq_count()) > > +/* > + * Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot > + * always detect atomic context and should not be used to determine > + * whether sleeping is possible. Do not use it in driver code. > + */ > #define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0) It'd be better if the comment were to describe _why_ in_atomic() is unreliable. ie: "does not account for held spinlocks on non-preemptible kernels". -- 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