linux-kernel - Re: May the worker function free its struct

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100511012756.GB18062@windriver.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 09:27:56 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
To:	Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: May the worker function free its struct_work (plus container)?

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:18:38PM +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Thanks. Is there API documentation or source code documentation that
> confirms this is the case?

static void run_workqueue(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
{
	....

#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
		/*
		 * It is permissible to free the struct work_struct
		 * from inside the function that is called from it,
		 * this we need to take into account for lockdep too.
		 * To avoid bogus "held lock freed" warnings as well
		 * as problems when looking into work->lockdep_map,
		 * make a copy and use that here.
		 */
		struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = work->lockdep_map;
#endif
	....
}

I think the above comments in run_workqueue() can reflect that
from a certain point.

Thanks,
Yong
--
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/