linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112201027360.21231@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:31:09 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Tejun Heo wrote:

> This is __this_cpu_add() + preemption disabled check.  Should be
> removed.  Christoph, is there a use case where __this_cpu_XXX() is
> used without preemption disabled?  Why doesn't it have preemption
> check?

We discussed this before and said that it would be possible to add a
preemption check there. We would need to verify that there is no use case
of __this_cpu_XXX operations in preemptable context. There used to be a
case where we did not care about the races for the vmstat counters but
that seems to have been changed. Not aware of any other use case like
that.

--
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/