linux-kernel - Re: Simplifying our RCU models

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: <20180410234425.GA30784@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:44:25 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Simplifying our RCU models

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> > > who would need to reprogram their fingers?  Or is everyone already on
> > > board with changing these various names?
> > 
> > I really would prefer to not see massive re-naming unless there is a
> > really good reason for it.
> > 
> > I'm all for simplifying RCU from a million different versions down to
> > just a few thousand, but I'm definitely not convinced we want to do
> > any search-and-replace.
> 
> I am currently in the design (more accurately, reredesign phase) for
> the simplification.  It is quite possible that there is a good reason
> for at least some renaming, but in that case, I would come back later
> with that as a separate proposal.

And I really am still working on this.  It is a bit tricky, but still
looks doable.  More likely to be ready for 4.19 than 4.18, though.

							Thanx, Paul