linux-kernel - Invalid locking pattern in Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst?

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

Message-ID: <442ecdf402f8e726f2be4ab19c7299d272e27c0b.camel@siemens.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 12:23:47 +0000
From:   "Sverdlin, Alexander" <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>
To:     "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "manfred@...orfullife.com" <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Invalid locking pattern in Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst?

Dear documentation maintainers,

the latest version of locking.rst contains the following (since 2005):

"Manfred Spraul points out that you can still do this, even if the data
is very occasionally accessed in user context or softirqs/tasklets. The
irq handler doesn't use a lock, and all other accesses are done as so::

        spin_lock(&lock);
        disable_irq(irq);
"

Isn't it "sleeping in atomic" actually because of the sleeping
disable_irq()?

-- 
Alexander Sverdlin
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com