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  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:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:20:12 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <>
CC:	Ranko Zivojnovic <>,,
Subject: Re: + gen_estimator-fix-locking-and-timer-related-bugs.patch added
 to -mm tree

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:09:07PM +0300, Ranko Zivojnovic wrote:
>>However I decided not to use _rcu based iteration neither the
>>rcu_read_lock() after going through the RCU documentation and a bunch of
>>examples in kernel that iterate through the lists using non _rcu macros
>>and do list_del_rcu() just fine.
>>For readability, the reference to list_del_rcu as well as call_rcu, I
>>believe, should be enough of the indication. Please do correct me if I
>>am wrong here.
> It's only my opinion, and it's probably not very popular at least
> at net/ code, so it's more about general policy and not this
> particular code. But:
> - if somebody is looking after some rcu related problems, why can't
> he/she spare some time by omitting lists without _rcu and not
> analyzing why/how such lists are used and locked?

RCU is used for the read-side, using it on the write-side just makes
things *less* understandable IMO. It will look like the read-side
but still do modifications.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists