| 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: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:41:22 +0300 From: mihailov ivan <mihailov.iaa@...il.com> To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] change lock model in aio_put_req 2012/6/7 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>: > 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. Yes, my patch doesn't fix anything but it's allows this call inside of interrupt context. And curios why it can't be possible inside of interrupt context? From side - never changed, only we will can execute this call in interrupt context. I understood what is works as designed but don't understood why we can't imporve this call, it's 'fairly convention in the kernel'? -- 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