netdev - Re: + gen_estimator-fix-locking-and-timer-related-bugs.patch added to -mm tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070710135152.GD3130@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:51:52 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Ranko Zivojnovic <ranko@...dernet.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + gen_estimator-fix-locking-and-timer-related-bugs.patch added to -mm tree

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:20:12PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> From Documentation/RCU/checklist:
> 
> "9.      All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
>         list_for_each_rcu(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
>         list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(),
>         must be within an RCU read-side critical section.  RCU
>         read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock()
>         and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as
>         rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().

...But, on the other hand, Ranko didn't use any of these primitives...
So, first I said he should use this, and than I asked why there was
no rcu_read_locks around... I really start to amaze with my consistency.

I hope some day you'll forgive me (no hurry, I can wait).

Cheers,
Jarek P. 
-
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