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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:30:37 +0900 From: Makito SHIOKAWA <mshiokawa@...aclelinux.com> To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Makito SHIOKAWA <mshiokawa@...aclelinux.com> 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. -- Makito SHIOKAWA MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists