netdev - Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT

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: <20071217074411.GB1654@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:44:11 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:26:32AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
...
> > I retract what I've said in this thread and continue to oppose
> > this change without a might_sleep.
...
> So, I think using might_sleep() explicitly would be much more
> readable or, otherwise, Patrick's proposal with adding
> ASSERT_RTNL_ATOMIC would implicitly signal the real meaning of the
> other one.

OOPS! I've looped again! Of course, ASSERT_RTNL with might_sleep()
would be explicit enough by itself (if we don't believe atomicity
is debugged enough). So, this atomic version could be usable for
other reasons.
 
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