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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:43:50 +0100 From: Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com> To: zhoucm1 <david1.zhou@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>, Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after On 22.12.2016 02:58, zhoucm1 wrote: > On 2016年12月22日 02:46, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: >> +static inline bool __sched >> +__ww_ctx_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b) >> +{ >> + return a->stamp - b->stamp <= LONG_MAX && >> + (a->stamp != b->stamp || a > b); > I want to ask a stupid question, why a can compare with b? They are > pointers of structure. Isn't stamp enough for compare? As far as I understand, the idea is to provide a tie-breaker to ensure that there is a strict order between contexts even if the stamp happens to be equal. Since we get stamps from atomic increments, this really only matters if (a) someone makes a mistake and confuses ww_classes (which CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES would flag) or (b) the ww_class stamp counter wraps around fully during the lifetime of the acquire context. This is extremely unlikely of course. Nicolai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists