linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists

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: <1309380221.26417.50.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:43:41 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Dima Zavin <dima@...roid.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] plist: add mutex to the blessed lock type for plists

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 13:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote:

> The whole enforcement of locking inside this code is awkward anyway.
> We don't enforce locking on rb_trees, or on list_head, etc. Why
> plists? The funny part is that the test code in plist.c itself has a
> hack to skip the lock check.

It's a legacy from the -rt tree. With the development there, there was
always a case where a plist was added without the proper locking, and we
spent days debugging it. This test proved very useful. As plists came to
mainline, we kept the tests.

Now, getting rid of them maybe the thing to do. I'm not sure how useful
they are today.

-- Steve


--
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/