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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:24:29 +0100 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> Subject: Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 08:12 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > As I wrote in one of the comments, we have places in the kernel which > know that even though they're in a non-sleeping context, there is at > least one more token left in the semaphore. One place this bit me was > in start_kernel(). We disable interrupts and then call lock_kernel() > which calls down(). Since we're in start_kernel(), we know there's > nothing else running and this is perfectly safe. But a might_sleep() > would warn bogusly. I would have thought they'd use down_trylock() in that case. -- dwmw2 -- 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