linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs

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: <86c1243e-8733-c94d-d8ff-5c299b8266a6@wdc.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:31:38 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>
To:     "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "daniel@...stot.me" <daniel@...stot.me>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
        "williams@...hat.com" <williams@...hat.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lclaudio@...hat.com" <lclaudio@...hat.com>,
        "target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs_disabled()
 combo checks

On 03/28/18 08:14, bigeasy@...utronix.de wrote:
> On 2018-03-28 15:05:41 [+0000], Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> The names of the two functions touched by patch 1/2 start with a double
>> underscore. That by itself is already a hint that these should be called with
>> a lock held (I know that this is not a universal convention in the Linux
>> kernel). I'm fine either way - either with patch 1/2 as posted or patch 1/2
>> with the above comment added.
> 
> Okay. In that case let me update 1/2.
> But 2/2 with the comment as Steven suggested is still a no no for you?

Although I'm not enthusiast about patch 2/2, if others agree with that 
patch I'm fine with that patch being sent upstream.

Thanks,

Bart.