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]

Message-ID: <20091211220117.GE6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:01:17 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] Documentation: Fix invalid rcu assumptions

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:28:25PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 December 2009 00:53:26 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/credentials.txt
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/Documentation/credentials.txt
> > +++ linux-2.6-tip/Documentation/credentials.txt
> > @@ -408,9 +408,6 @@ This should be used inside the RCU read 
> >                 ...
> >         }
> >  
> > -A function need not get RCU read lock to use __task_cred() if it is holding a
> > -spinlock at the time as this implicitly holds the RCU read lock.
> > -
> >  Should it be necessary to hold another task's credentials for a long period of
> >  time, and possibly to sleep whilst doing so, then the caller should get a
> >  reference on them using:
> 
> How about changing the documentation to explain why you can't just use a spinlock
> or local_irq_disable instead of rcu_read_lock? You explained it well in your
> [patch 0/9], but that part had not occurred to me yet and having it in the kernel
> sources might prevent more people from getting it wrong in the future.

That does make a lot of sense...  Will add that in.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/