linux-kernel - Re: Question regarding list_for_each_entry_safe usage in move_one

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALZhoSQrJ7aLkzkDxwd4diSXUUG3tJ7qpzpy7N6XEpW21NxAvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:50:49 +0800
From:	Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mingo@...hat.com, leiwen@...vell.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding list_for_each_entry_safe usage in move_one_task

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 02:26:45PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I find one list API usage may not be correct in current fair.c code.
>> In move_one_task function, it may iterate through whole cfs_tasks
>> list to get one task to move.
>>
>> But in dequeue_task(), it would delete one task node from list
>> without the lock protection. So that we could see from
>> list_for_each_entry_safe API definitoin:
>
> Both sites hold the required rq->lock.

I see, sorry for the noise...

Thanks,
Lei
--
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/