linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: Makes `CondVar::wait()` an uninterruptible wait

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: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:39:14 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tiago Lam <tiagolam@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: Makes `CondVar::wait()` an uninterruptible wait

On 12/16/23 00:45, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 9:04 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, `CondVar::wait()` is an interruptible wait, and this is
>>> different than `wait_event()` in include/linux/wait.h (which is an
>>> uninterruptible wait). To avoid confusion between different APIs on the
>>> interruptible/uninterruptible, make `CondVar::wait()` an uninterruptible
>>> wait same as `wait_event()`, also rename the old `wait()` to
>>> `CondVar::wait_interruptible()`.
>>>
>>> Spotted-by: Tiago Lam <tiagolam@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
>>
>> The diff is a bit hard to read because you swapped the order of the
>> functions, but LGTM.
>>
> 
> Yeah, I did that because `wait_interruptible` metioned `wait`, so I had
> to make `wait` still before `wait_interruptible`.

What do you mean? If you are talking about the doclink, then
that should not matter.

-- 
Cheers,
Benno