| 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: <489B26F0.3030603@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:46:40 +0200 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb-2.6.27-rc2-ia32-08-07-08.patch jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote: > rspin locks are for these types of cases -- so if I fault on the same > processor I took the lock on it just bumps a counter -- yes, it is atomic > and SMP safe to do it this way. Only if all contexts which take rlocks are not preemptible. Which I don't know whether they are; I'm just a driver guy. You use spin_lock_irqsave() rather than plain spin_lock() though, which indicates that you want to be able to take the locks from preemptible contexts too. In that case, your accessors are subtly buggy. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- =--- --=== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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