linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache

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]

Message-ID: <7e58e73d-4173-49fe-8f05-38a3699bc2c1@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:52:57 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
 Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>,
 Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
 netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple
 kmem_cache_free callback

On 6/12/24 4:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [PATCH 09/14] block: replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache_free callback
> 	I don't see a kmem_cache_destroy(), but then again, I also don't
> 	see the kmem_cache_create().  Unless someone can see what I am
> 	not seeing, let's wait.

It's in that same file:

blk_ioc_init()

the cache itself never goes away, as the ioc code is not unloadable. So
I think the change there should be fine.

-- 
Jens Axboe