netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] connector/cn_proc: Protect send

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]

Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 16:51:30 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
        Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] connector/cn_proc: Protect send_msg() with a
 local lock

On 2020-05-25 09:18:19 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct local_evt, local_evt) = {
> > +	.counts = 0,
> 
> I don't think zero initializations need to be written out explicitly.
yes.

> > +	.lock = INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(lock),
> > +};
> >  
> >  static inline void send_msg(struct cn_msg *msg)
> >  {
> > -	preempt_disable();
> > +	local_lock(&local_evt.lock);
> >  
> > -	msg->seq = __this_cpu_inc_return(proc_event_counts) - 1;
> > +	msg->seq = __this_cpu_inc_return(local_evt.counts) - 1;
> 
> Naming nit: renaming this from 'proc_event_counts' to 
> 'local_evt.counts' is a step back IMO - what's an 'evt',
> did we run out of e's? ;-)
> 
> Should be something like local_event.count? (Singular.)

okay.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Sebastian