linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed

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:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:17:10 +0100
From:   Harald Geyer <harald@...ib.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work()

Mark Brown writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> > Mark Brown writes:
> 
> > > detail. I'd expect to see some words describing the situations where it
> > > can be used or something, both the name and the lack of any information
> > > about issues suggest it's the default thing and will work safely.
> 
> > It was obvious enough for me, so that I proposed a new function
> > instead of just switching the regulator code from queue_delayed_work()
> > to mod_delayed_work(). If it's not obvious to you, I suggest that
> > you supply a patch improving the documentation.
> 
> I'd need to figure out exactly what the restrictions are and like I say
> the name of the function itself is confusing, I suspect because it
> predates SMP.

I guess you know that, but just to avoid any confusion: The bug in the
regulator code is not related to SMP at all.
 
> > > I suspect people are just using mod_delayed_work(), not realising that
> > > there are restrictions. I'm thinking that perhaps it should be fixed to
> > > be safe for calling from different contexts and a new function with the
> > > existing behaviour added, that seems less error prone.
> 
> > As I already wrote in my last message: To go that path means to review
> > 107 uses of mod_delayed_work(). Maybe you have somebody you can assign
> > that task to? 
> 
> Actually yes, though not immediately.  Another option is to just rename
> the current function and all the callers en masse then add a new, safe
> mod_delayed_work().

Okay by me. I'm removing the issue from my todo list and hand it over
to you and your minions ... :)

thanks,
Harald

-- 
If you want to support my work:
see http://friends.ccbib.org/harald/supporting/
or donate via CLAM to xASPBtezLNqj4cUe8MT5nZjthRSEjrRQXN
or via peercoin to P98LRdhit3gZbHDBe7ta5jtXrMJUms4p7w