linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] target: simplify target_wait_for_sess

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:	Tue, 14 May 2013 12:29:39 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] target: simplify target_wait_for_sess_cmds()

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > 
> > I agree that the overhead doesn't matter.  The msleep(100) spells this
> > out rather explicitly.  What does matter is that a) the patch retains
> > old behaviour with much simpler code and b) it fixes a race that kills
> > the machine.  I can live without a, but very much want to keep b. ;)
> 
> Fucking around with ->sess_cmd_lock during each loop of ->sess_cmd_list
> in target_wait_for_sess_cmds is not simpler code..

I could argue that fucking around with ->sess_cmd_lock during each
loop is simpler than the communication through cmd_wait_set and
cmd_wait_comp.  But simplicity is ultimately subjective and we can
argue all day.

 drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c  |    2 +-
 drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/tcm_qla2xxx.c     |    2 +-
 drivers/target/target_core_transport.c |   64 +++++++++-----------------------
 include/target/target_core_base.h      |    2 -
 include/target/target_core_fabric.h    |    2 +-
 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)

But diffstat is reasonably objective.  Do you really want me to come
up with an alternative patch that adds code instead of removing it?

Jörn

--
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
--
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/