linux-kernel - Re: call_rcu from trace

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:	Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:13:02 +0200
From:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt

On 06/16/2015 06:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:43:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:16:26 -0700
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Just for the record: Using a thread for freeing the memory is curing the
>>>> problem without the need to modify rcu_is_watching.
>>>
>>> I must confess to liking this approach better than guaranteeing full-up
>>> reentrancy in call_rcu() and kfree_rcu().  ;-)
>>
>> Then reentrancy must be really bad if you prefer a spinning thread that
>> polls constantly just to free an item ;-)
>
> I was (perhaps naively) assuming that they would use a less aggressive
> approach at some point.  ;-)

Yes, this was just playing around :)

--
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/