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: <478EE7FD.3010802@miraclelinux.com>
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