linux-kernel - Re: schedule inside spin_lock

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: <4C0284FF.4080707@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 30 May 2010 17:32:15 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
CC:	Richard Zidlicky <rz@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: schedule inside spin_lock_irqsave?

On 05/30/2010 05:24 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> struct smscore_buffer_t *get_entry(void)
> {
>   struct smscore_buffer_t *cb = NULL;
>   spin_lock_irqsave(&coredev->bufferslock, flags);
>   if (!list_empty(&coredev->buffers)) {
>     cb = (struct smscore_buffer_t *) coredev->buffers.next;

Looking at the smscore_buffer_t definition, this is really ugly since it
relies on entry being the first in the structure. It should be
list_first_entry(&coredev->buffers, ...) instead, cast-less.

>     list_del(&cb->entry);
>   }
>   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&coredev->bufferslock, flags);
>   return cb;
> }


-- 
js
--
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/