netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix NOHZ: local_softirq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20091001.123252.114903468.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mb@...sch.de
Cc:	johannes@...solutions.net, oliver@...tkopp.net, kalle.valo@....fi,
	linville@...driver.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08

From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:10:32 +0200

> For the benefit of a much bigger critical section? I don't get it
> why this would be any better.

Think about what you are saying when you introduce things
like this into your code:

	if (in_interrupt())
		foo();
	else
		bar();

That thing there means you don't know anything about how you'll need
to do locking properly, because you have no idea about even the
context in which your code is executed.

Sure, you can lock for the most stringent case, but that's silly and
wasteful.
--
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