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]
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:26:35 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <>
To:	Steven Rostedt <>
cc:	LKML <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Vladimir Davydov <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > We'll want to do something similiar for the add_partial() called from
> > early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(), right?  It had the added n->list_lock for 
> > the same reason and is done during early init where nobody else can be 
> > referencing a kmem_cache_node.
> > 
> > It would probably be better to define these in terms of "partial slabs 
> > that cannot have anyone else accessing it" rather than "freed slabs".
> Perhaps then we just use the __remove_partial() and __add_partial()
> that does not do the checks. That's common practice to use a "__" to
> denote that it's special and usually doesn't require locking.

Sounds appropriate.  Andrew released a mmotm today so I'm assuming it will 
be in linux-next tomorrow with my {add,remove}_full() patch but it 
shouldn't matter if you're going to be playing with 
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists