linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] kvm: x86: Keep the lock order consistent

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: <Y2RLl8MaGw/rn7TL@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 23:15:35 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Hao Peng <flyingpenghao@...il.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] kvm: x86: Keep the lock order consistent

Nit, capitalize KVM in the shortlog, i.e. "KVM: x86:".

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, Hao Peng wrote:
> From: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
> 
> Acquire SRCU before taking the gpc spinlock in wait_pending_event() so as
>  to be consistent with all other functions that acquire both locks.  It's
>  not illegal to acquire SRCU inside a spinlock, nor is there deadlock
>  potential, but in general it's preferable to order locks from least
>  restrictive to most restrictive, e.g. if wait_pending_event() needed to
>  sleep for whatever reason, it could do so while holding SRCU, but would
>  need to drop the spinlock.

Extra whitespace at the beginning of each line should be deleted.

> Thanks Sean Christopherson for the comment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
> ---

Nits aside,

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>