linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] rhashtable: remove incorrect comment on r{hl, hash}table_walk

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: <20180419032237.yjvjuh6n7n6tggtr@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:22:37 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] rhashtable: remove incorrect comment on r{hl,
 hash}table_walk_enter()

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:56:28AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> I don't want to do that - I just want the documentation to be correct
> (or at least, not be blatantly incorrect).  The function does not sleep,
> and is safe to call with spin locks held.
> Do we need to spell out when it can be called?  If so, maybe:
> 
>    This function may be called from any process context, including
>    non-preemptable context, but cannot be called from interrupts.

Just to make it perfectly clear, how about "cannot be called from
softirq or hardirq context"? Previously the not able to sleep part
completely ruled out any ambiguity but the new wording could confuse
people into thinking that this can be called from softirq context
where it would be unsafe if mixed with process context usage.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt