netdev - Re: 2.6.25rc7 lockdep trace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47EE3B8C.8090707@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:52:28 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, davej@...emonkey.org.uk,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.25rc7 lockdep trace

Johannes Berg wrote, On 03/29/2008 11:02 AM:

... 
> When you call cancel_work_sync(), the work struct will be grabbed by the
> code (really __cancel_work_timer) and removed from the queue. That just
> operates on bits and a spinlock, not locks held across the struct work
> function execution, and ensures it is race-free without needing any such
> locks

...

> However, as I just tried to explain, cancel_work_sync() _is_ safe to run
> while holding the RTNL because it doesn't need any runqueue lock.

These issues are so seldom now that I forget these details each time

"after use", so maybe I miss something again, but shouldn't this rather
read something like this?:

cancel_work_sync() _is_ safe to run while holding the RTNL against
works which don't take RTNL.

Regards,
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