| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20070111.012755.15271378.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:27:55 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: jarkao2@...pl Cc: shemminger@...l.org, greearb@...delatech.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, dlstevens@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks) From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:39:34 +0100 > Sure, but is this even legal to be preempted during > reading or modifying rcu list or be blocked while > holding rcu protected pointer? Doesn't this disturb > rcu cycle and make possible memory release problems? It's fine in this case. Since the list cannot be changed by anyone else, and the hash linked list (as seen by readers) is modified atomically by a single store, it all works out. Readers only look at foo->next in the hash traversal. Since the preceeding element cannot change outside of the current writer, the ->next pointer to update is protected. Readers therefore will either see the hash list with the entry or without. We then use call_rcu() to make sure any reading threads that happened to get a glimpse of the hash entry before the hlist_del_rcu() completed will go away and drop their references before we free that entry. I really don't see any problem here. :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists