linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] ARC: rwlock: disable interrupts in !LLSC variant

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: <20151102100311.GO17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:03:11 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc:	Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, talz@...hip.com, gilf@...hip.com,
	cmetcalf@...hip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] ARC: rwlock: disable interrupts in !LLSC variant

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:12:49PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > @@ -664,16 +670,24 @@ static inline void arch_write_lock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> >  
> >  static inline void arch_read_unlock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> >  {
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> >  	arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> 
> 
> Isn't raw_spin_lock_irqsave() equivalent and more concise ?

You might run into header file recursion issues; also raw_spinlock has
lockdep annotations added, whereas the above does not.
--
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/