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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <db88d33f-8e25-8859-84ec-3372a108c759@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:42:00 +0800 From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com> To: Tuong Lien Tong <tuong.t.lien@...tech.com.au>, <paulmck@...nel.org> CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...nel.org>, <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <kernel-team@...com>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [tipc-discussion] [PATCH net/tipc] Replace rcu_swap_protected() with rcu_replace_pointer() On 12/11/19 10:00 AM, Tuong Lien Tong wrote: >> >> /* Move passive key if any */ >> if (key.passive) { >> - tipc_aead_rcu_swap(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2, &rx->lock); >> + tmp2 = rcu_replace_pointer(rx->aead[key.passive], tmp2, > &rx->lock); > The 3rd parameter should be the lockdep condition checking instead of the > spinlock's pointer i.e. "lockdep_is_held(&rx->lock)"? > That's why I'd prefer to use the 'tipc_aead_rcu_swap ()' macro, which is > clear & concise at least for the context here. It might be re-used later as > well... > Right. The 3rd parameter of rcu_replace_pointer() should be "lockdep_is_held(&rx->lock)" instead of "&rx->lock".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists