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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Josh Triplett <>,,
        Lai Jiangshan <>,,,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:24:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 19:49:28 -0400
> "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <> wrote:
> > The series removes users of the following APIs, and the APIs themselves, since
> > the regular non - _notrace variants don't do any tracing anyway.
> >  * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu_notrace
> >  * rcu_dereference_raw_notrace
> > 
> I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep
> that check?

This is true.

Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API
just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting
_raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just
want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a
sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to
always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got
changed in

thanks a lot,

 - Joel

> -- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists