linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking

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]

Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:16:34 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:08:00PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Modifying blkgs require both blkcg and queue locks,
> > so read access can be done holding any lock.
> 
> This is the point I am not getting. How blkg_lookup() is safe just
> under queue lock. What stops freeing up blkg associated with other
> queues. I thought caller needs to hold rcu_read_lock() also to
> make sure it can safely compare blkg->q == q and return the blkg
> belonging to the queue in question.

Ooh, you're right.  I got confused.  We should be holding either blkcg
lock or rcu_read_lock() across blkg_lookup().  Will update.

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/