linux-kernel - Re: when spin_lock_irq (as opposed to spin_lock

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: <200810121548.05644.arvidjaar@mail.ru>
Date:	Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:48:00 +0400
From:	Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: when spin_lock_irq (as opposed to spin_lock_irqsave) is appropriate?

On Saturday 11 October 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
[... very useful explanation omitted ...]
> Does this answer your question?
> 

As Oliver pointed out, part of confusion wa my asumption that _irqsave
verion saves actual interrupt mask. It actually does not.

This leaves me with a question - how can I know whether interrupts may
(not) be disabled at particular point? In particular, is it safe to 
assume that any place marked at "code may sleep" has interrupts enabled?

Thank you both!

-andrey

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)