linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed partial

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402060936140.31869@nuc>
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:36:40 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...nel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed
 partial

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:

> > @@ -2906,12 +2916,10 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(
> >  	inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, node, page->objects);
> >
> >  	/*
> > -	 * the lock is for lockdep's sake, not for any actual
> > -	 * race protection
> > +	 * No locks need to be taken here as it has just been
> > +	 * initialized and there is no concurrent access.
> >  	 */
> > -	spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
> > -	add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> > -	spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
> > +	__add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> >  }

Ahh.. Much better.

Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>

--
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/