linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees][PATCH] doc: RCU callback locks need only _bh, not necessarily

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: <20190627182938.306ab9d9@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:29:38 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiunn Chang <c0d1n61at3@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        josh@...htriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, corbet@....net,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees][PATCH] doc: RCU callback locks need only
 _bh, not necessarily _irq

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:10:45 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:01:35PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 6/27/19 3:01 PM, Jiunn Chang wrote:  
> > >The UP.rst file calls for locks acquired within RCU callback functions
> > >to use _irq variants (spin_lock_irqsave() or similar), which does work,
> > >but can be overkill.  This commit therefore instead calls for _bh variants
> > >(spin_lock_bh() or similar), while noting that _irq does work.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>  
> > 
> > Should this by Suggested-by?  
> 
> I wrote it and Jiunn converted my change to .rst, so I believe that
> this is correct as is.

Note, you did send Jiunn an explicit Signed-off-by when you wrote it,
correct? As Signed-off-by is equivalent to a signature.

-- Steve