linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: missing nvm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:27:38 +0100
From:	Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io>
To:	Wenwei Tao <ww.tao0320@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: missing nvm_lock acquire

On 11/25/2015 03:18 PM, Wenwei Tao wrote:
> Or we can add a new function
>
> static struct nvm_dev *nvm_find_nvm_dev_locked(const char *name)
>   {
>          struct nvm_dev *dev;
>
> +       down_write(&nvm_lock);
>          list_for_each_entry(dev, &nvm_devices, devices)
>                  if (!strcmp(name, dev->name))
>                          return dev;
> +       up_write(&nvm_lock);
>
>          return NULL;
>   }
>
> use nvm_find_nvm_dev_locked() and nvm_find_nvm_dev() properly.
>

That could also work. Let's go with your original solution. I don't like 
it completely, but on the other hand. The other iterators build up to 
the locks in that way. So making a special case for the nvm_find_nvm_dev 
properly makes the code harder to understand.

--
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/