linux-kernel - Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions

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]

Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:55:18 +0100
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions

[trimmed Cc]

>2) remove the stale signal code snippet
...
2009/12/10 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> Index: linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt
> +++ linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/kmemcheck.txt
> @@ -429,8 +429,7 @@ Let's take a look at it:
>  193         /*
>  194          * We won't get problems with the target's UID changing under us
>  195          * because changing it requires RCU be used, and if t != current, the
> -196          * caller must be holding the RCU readlock (by way of a spinlock) and
> -197          * we use RCU protection here
> +196          * caller must be holding the RCU readlocke
>  198          */
>  199         user = get_uid(__task_cred(t)->user);
>  200         atomic_inc(&user->sigpending);

I am not sure that I really agree with this change. This is not a code
example for the sake of showing how to do a particular thing, it's an
example of real code from the tree.

I don't remember if the document is referring to a particular git
version of the code, but I think it might not, in which case it
doesn't REALLY matter even on the microscopic level.

But I won't make a big fuss about it :-)


Vegard

PS: Upon closer inspection, I noticed that one line (line 197) goes
completely missing, there seems to be a typo there too, "readlocke".
Still it's not a huge deal, I admit.
--
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/