netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] bonding: Fix some RTNL taking

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: <20080117114655.GC1710@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:46:55 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Makito SHIOKAWA <mshiokawa@...aclelinux.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] bonding: Fix some RTNL taking

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:30:37PM +0900, Makito SHIOKAWA wrote:
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but since this read_lock() is given and taken anyway,
>> it seems this looks a bit better to me (why hold this rtnl longer
>> than needed?):
>> 		read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>> 		rtnl_unlock();
>> 		read_lock(&bond->lock);
> Seems better.
>
>> On the other hand, probably 'if (bond->kill_timers)' could be repeated
>> after this read_lock() retaking.
> Sorry, what do you mean? (A case that bond->kill_timers = 1 is done during 
> lock retaking, and work being queued only to do 'if (bond->kill_timers)'? 
> If so, I think that won't differ much.)

Probably the difference is not much, but since this all double locking,
unlocking and something between could take a while, and such a check
looks cheaper than re-queueing... But I don't persist in this.

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