linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH percpu/for-3.16 2/2] percpu-refcount: implement percpu_ref

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:	Fri, 9 May 2014 15:55:22 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH percpu/for-3.16 2/2] percpu-refcount: implement
 percpu_ref_tryget()

Hello,

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:51:09PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Well not so much deprecated as "bad, avoid" - IMO using tryget() almost always
> (I haven't seen a convincing counterexample) means you screwed up your
> refcounting somewhere, if you need to take a ref on something whatever made that
> object visible to you should have its own ref.
> 
> (I think we had this debate, but that was awhile ago...)

Oh sure, tryget can definitely be misunderstood but RCU protected
iteration is one valid use case.

	rcu_read_lock();
	locate the object of interest;
	tryget[_live]() depending on the use case;
	rcu_read_unlock();

	access the object.

It's not different from why we use atomic_inc_not_zero() in some
places.  The only difference is that percpu_ref distinguishes live
vs. dying states.  It's true that this can be used in pretty stupid
ways but I think the comments are pretty clear on that.  Do you think
we need more warning there?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/