linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: Convert for_each

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190814224205.GC69375@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:42:05 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list
 check (v2)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:48:41PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Joel.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> > checking in the caller.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

Thanks.

> >  #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq)						\
> > -	list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node)		\
> > -		if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq); false; })) { }	\
> > -		else
> > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node,		\
> > +				 lock_is_held(&(wq->mutex).dep_map))
> 
> Why not lockdep_is_held() tho?

Yes, that's better.

thanks,

 - Joel