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: <20150528065957.GJ17625@uranus.sw.swsoft.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 09:59:57 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jarod@...hat.com, jstancek@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] proc: fix PAGE_SIZE limit of /proc/$PID/cmdline

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:12:07AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Could you please explain why this down/up is needed?
> > > 
> > > Code is written this way to get constistent snapshot of data.
> > 
> > it does not. you fetch data into local variables which is the
> > same as simply read them locklessly in general (because later
> > you refer to local vars).
> 
> It is snapshot w.r.t getting both pairs not snapshot w.r.t atomicity or
> something (unsigned long access is atomic after all). Once down_write()
> is used in the other place, it even becomes obviously correct code!

Not at all. It is correct if and only if you're operating under lock
taken, once you fetch the pair and left the lock it simply local copies
of values the descriptor had when lock was taken.

	Cyrill
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ