linux-kernel - bad example in Documentation/atomic

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4836DC57.1020101@yandex.ru>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2008 18:01:43 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: bad example in Documentation/atomic_ops.txt ?

Hi,

I it looks like the example in the Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
file at line 232 is not quite right. The obj->active = 0 will
be delayed, but not further than spin_unlock() in obj_timeout().
Becaus spin_unlock() has a memory barrier.

I guess you would need to move spin_lock(&global_list_lock) to
obj_list_del() to make the example valid.

This confused me when I read the file.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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/