linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation

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:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:59:03 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]

Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Only on Alpha.  Otherwise only a volatile access.

Whilst that is true, it's the principle of the thing.  The extra barrier
shouldn't be emitted on Alpha.  If Alpha's no longer important, then can we
scrap smp_read_barrier_depends()?

My point is that some of these rcu_dereference*()'s are unnecessary.  If
there're required for correctness tracking purposes, fine; but can we have a
macro that is just a dummy for the purpose of stripping the pointer Sparse
annotation?  One that doesn't invoke rcu_dereference_raw() and interpolate a
barrier, pretend or otherwise, when there's no second reference to order
against.

David
--
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/