linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003280339590.3147@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:07:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, adobriyan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects

B1;2005;0cOn Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> o	Patch 4/6 looks good to me, and given that Thomas hasn't
> 	complained, I am guessing that he is OK with it.

Looks sane at the first glance. Will go over it in detail tomorrow.
 
> o	Patch 6/6: Would it be possible to use the object_is_on_stack()
> 	function defined in include/linux/sched.h instead of passing
> 	in the flag on_stack to bdi_work_init()?  It looks like
> 	fs/fs-writeback.c already includes include/linux/sched.h, so
> 	shouldn't be a problem from a #include-hell viewpoint.

Well, I'm a bit wary about that. The reason is that we really want
the annotation of:

       init_on_stack();
       ....
       destroy_on_stack();

instead of the confusing:

       init();
       ....
       destroy_on_stack();

So having an automatism in the bdi_work_init() function will people
make forget to put the destroy_on_stack() annotation into it.

The flag is horrible as well. How about this:

/* helper function, do not use in code ! */
__bdi_work_init(....., onstack)
{
	....
	if (on_stack) {
	   work.state |= WS_ONSTACK;
	   init_rcu_head_on_stack(&work.rcu_head);
	} else {
	....
}

See, how this moves also the "work.state |= WS_ONSTACK;" line out of
the calling code.

bdi_work_init(...)
{
	 __bdi_work_init(...., false);
}

bdi_work_init_on_stack(...)
{
	 __bdi_work_init(...., true);
}


out of the code.

To make it complete, please do not use the asymmetric:

   destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&work.rcu_head);

Create a helper function:

bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(...)
{
   destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(work->rcu_head);
}    

That makes it way more readable and we did that with the other on
stack initializers as well.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/