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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org 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)" <joel@...lfernandes.org> 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 http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html thanks a lot, - Joel > > -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists