linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] jump_label: no need to acquire the jump_label_mutex in jump_lable

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: <20150821031755.GA12451@pek-khao-d1.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:17:55 +0800
From:	Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] jump_label: no need to acquire the jump_label_mutex
 in jump_lable_init()

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:29:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:14:29PM +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
> > The jump_label_init() run in a very early stage, even before the
> > sched_init(). So there is no chance for concurrent access of the
> > jump label table.
> 
> It also doesn't hurt to have it. Its better to be consistent and
> conservative with locking unless there is a pressing need.

Yes, it has no real hurt. IMHO it may cause confusion that the function
jump_label_init() may run in two different thread context simultaneously. 
Anyway if you guys don't think so, I can drop this patch.

Thanks,
Kevin

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped