[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=hENeWDNTQ8oQurdX6kHxuuRVh-DtEDEDH0=-BCM9mqzZn6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:34:32 +0800
From: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] bpf, security: Add Checmate
Sure.
Is it better to add
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU ?
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Please do not top post
>
> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:08 +0800, zhuyj wrote:
>> +void register_checmate_prog_ops(void);
>> maybe it is extern void register_checmate_prog_ops(void);?
>>
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> IMHO, it is not necessary to use the above 2 since rcu_read_lock will
>> call preempt_disable.
>
> You might double check if this claim is true if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists