linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers accept task state bitmask

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

Message-ID: <20140123193441.GV9037@kmo>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:34:41 -0800
From:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers
 accept task state bitmask

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:04AM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:53 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > > 
> > > Does this satisfy your questions..?
> > > 
> > > Do you have any more concerns about TASK_RUNNING + prepare_to_wait()
> > > usage in percpu_ida_alloc() that need to be addressed before I can drop
> > > this series into target-pending/for-next to address the original bug..?
> > > 
> > 
> > Given the silence, 
> 
> You mean the silence in which I send a 4+ emails earlier today?
> 
> > I'll assume your OK with the initial TASK_RUNNING +
> > prepare_to_wait() bit, right..?
> 
> No, I would prefer not to do that. While it does work its awkward at
> best.

I do like the improvements, but personally, I really don't see anything wrong
with the initial patch and for backporting that really is what we should do -
this code _is_ subtle enough backporting our (your) improvements is not
something I'd want to do, having debugged this code when I first wrote it...
--
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/