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  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:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:30:37 +0900
From:	Makito SHIOKAWA <>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <>
	Makito SHIOKAWA <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] bonding: Fix some RTNL taking

> 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.)

> If this if () is really necessary here, then this should be better
> before "delay = ..." with a block.
I agree.

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