linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

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

Message-ID: <20190912133226.oeo3eecvzfr52yv3@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:32:27 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of
 read-write lock

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 08:29:01AM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote:
> Remove the clever example about read-write lock because this type of
> lock is not reccomended anymore (according to the very same document).

reccomended => recommended

> So there is no reason to teach cleaver things that people should not do.

cleaver => clever

> Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
> ---
>  Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst | 12 ------------
>  1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst b/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst
> index e93ec6645238..66e3792f8a36 100644
> --- a/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst
> @@ -139,18 +139,6 @@ on other CPU's, because an interrupt on another CPU doesn't interrupt the
>  CPU that holds the lock, so the lock-holder can continue and eventually
>  releases the lock).
>  
> -Note that you can be clever with read-write locks and interrupts. For
> -example, if you know that the interrupt only ever gets a read-lock, then
> -you can use a non-irq version of read locks everywhere - because they
> -don't block on each other (and thus there is no dead-lock wrt interrupts.
> -But when you do the write-lock, you have to use the irq-safe version.
> -
> -For an example of being clever with rw-locks, see the "waitqueue_lock"
> -handling in kernel/sched/core.c - nothing ever _changes_ a wait-queue from
> -within an interrupt, they only read the queue in order to know whom to
> -wake up. So read-locks are safe (which is good: they are very common
> -indeed), while write-locks need to protect themselves against interrupts.
> -

With the typos fixed in the commit message:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>

Will