linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/urgent] locking/rwsem-spinlock: Fix EINTR branch in __down_write

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170706074234.ulpvtse7s2qtdwgx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:42:34 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/urgent] locking/rwsem-spinlock: Fix EINTR branch in
 __down_write_common()

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:28:58AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It's more straightforward to just do the canonical sem->count >= 0 test that we do 
> elsewhere in the rwsem-spinlock code.
> 
> PeterZ, what's your preference?

Leave it as is.. it doesn't matter (the 0 case shouldn't happen) and as
you say >= 0 is what most other code does.