| 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: <4B2E0CFB.30806@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:39:39 +0100 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jay Fenlason <fenlason@...hat.com> Subject: On "ratelimit: Use per ratelimit context locking" Hi Ingo, in pre 2.6.33-rc1 commit 979f693d you wrote: "I'd like to use printk_ratelimit() in atomic context, but that's not possible right now due to the spinlock usage this commit introduced more than a year ago: 717115e: printk ratelimiting rewrite".¹,² By not possible, do you mean it would be an outright bug to call printk_ratelimit in atomic context prior to 979f693d, or merely a performance issue? If the former, under which circumstances would the bug hit? I'm asking because one of my commits actually introduced a printk_ratelimit use in an interrupt handler shortly before 2.6.32 was released. In my testing, it didn't occur to me that there might be a problem. ¹http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=979f693def9084a452846365dfde5dcb28366333 ²http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=717115e1a5856b57af0f71e1df7149108294fc10 -- 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