linux-kernel - Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

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]

Message-ID: <20140609165943.09935fb8@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:59:43 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:06 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock
> owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear.
> 
> Found while documenting the chain walk.

This looks fine, I just hate the subject. I don't see how it is
'deobfuscating" the chain walk. How about:

rtmutex: No need to keep task ref when checking lock ownership

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |    5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  
>  	/* Release the task */
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> +	put_task_struct(task);
> +
>  	if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) {
>  		/*
>  		 * If the requeue above changed the top waiter, then we need
> @@ -420,9 +422,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  		if (top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
>  			wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task);
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> -		goto out_put_task;
> +		return 0;
>  	}
> -	put_task_struct(task);
>  
>  	/* Grab the next task */
>  	task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
> 

--
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/