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]

Message-ID: <20100331151604.GC2461@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:16:04 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	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]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:04:33PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > How about Eric's suggestion of rcu_dereference_protected()?  That name
> > doesn't imply a lock, which as you say above, isn't always needed to
> > keep the structure from changing.
> 
> But 'protected' from what or by what?

Protected by something that the caller did, be it holding the the correct
lock, operating on it during initialization before other CPUs have access
to it, operating on it during cleanup after other CPUs' access has been
revoked, or whatever.

							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/