netdev - Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream

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

Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:11:57 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream

On 04/23, David Howells wrote:
> 
> > We only care when del_timer() returns true. In that case, if the timer
> > function still runs (possible for single-threaded wqs), it has already
> > passed __queue_work().
> 
> Why do you assume that?

If del_timer() returns true, the timer was pending. This means it was started
by work->func() (note that __run_timers() clears timer_pending() before calling
timer->function). This in turn means that delayed_work_timer_fn() has already
called __queue_work(dwork), otherwise work->func() has no chance to run.

When del_timer() returns true and delayed_work_timer_fn() doesn't run we are
safe, this doesn't differ from del_timer_sync().

Oleg.

-
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