linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: don't use execute_in_process

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: <4D09116C.6010508@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:05:16 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
CC:	Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: don't use execute_in_process_context()

Hey, James.

On 12/15/2010 06:22 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> Hmm, I suppose the original coding didn't contemplate pre-emption.  This
> should fix it then, I think (with no alteration to the callsites because
> of the encapsulating API).  It does assume the function being executed
> is local to the file doing the execution, which is true in all current
> cases.

Yes, it would do, but we were already too far with the existing
implementation and I don't agree we need more when replacing it with
usual workqueue usage would remove the issue.  So, when we actually
need them, let's consider that or any other way to do it, please.
A core API with only a few users which can be easily replaced isn't
really worth keeping around.  Wouldn't you agree?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/