linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] idr: Document calling context for IDA APIs mustn't use locks

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:12:50 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tri Vo <trong@...roid.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idr: Document calling context for IDA APIs mustn't use
 locks

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:07:52PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> The documentation for these functions indicates that callers don't need
> to hold a lock while calling them, but that documentation is only in one
> place under "IDA Usage". Let's state the same information on each IDA
> function so that it's clear what the calling context requires.
> Furthermore, let's document ida_simple_get() with the same information
> so that callers know how this API works.

I don't want people to use ida_simple_get() any more.  Use ida_alloc()
instead.

> - * Context: Any context.
> + * Context: Any context. It is safe to call this function without
> + * synchronisation in your code.

I prefer "without locking" to "without synchronisation" ...