| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:04:54 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com> To: <matt@...sole-pimps.org> Cc: <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>, <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, <mjg@...hat.com>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock >>> Matt Fleming 08/04/11 11:33 AM >>> >On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> Seems the wrong approach to me: The call happening with the lock held >> is the wrong part imo, and hence the fix ought to be to drop the lock >> there. > >But what about other platforms that provide a get_wallclock() >implementation such as the kvm or xen code? If we called get_wallclock() Virtual platforms will have to take care of the serialization in the host anyway, so the guest side implementation of getwallclock et al is entirely unaffected. >without rtc_lock held we'd be requiring everyone to lock it in their >clock code, which is unnecessary work and increases the amount of code >that touches rtc_lock (not to mention spreading it across several >files). > >I think it's much better to do the locking as high up the callstack as >possible and preferably in as few places as possible. I agree to the "as few places as possible" part. Jan -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists