linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] change lock model in aio_put

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: <x497gvjb3dn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:31:00 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	mihailov ivan <mihailov.iaa@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] change lock model in aio_put_req

mihailov ivan <mihailov.iaa@...il.com> writes:

> Why used spin_lock/unlock_irq instead of
> spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore?

Because the function is never called from interrupt context.

> __aio_put_req it's interrupt safe call but why aio_put_req not?

__aio_put_req is called with the ctx lock already taken.  This (the __
routine being called with the lock held) is a fairly common convention
in the kernel.

Nack.  Your patch doesn't fix anything.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/