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: <20231101205238.GI1957730@ZenIV> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:52:38 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather than read_seqbegin_or_lock() On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:23:03PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Yes this is confusing. Again, even the documentation is wrong! That is why > I am trying to remove the misuse of read_seqbegin_or_lock(), then I am going > to change the semantics of need_seqretry() to enforce the locking on the 2nd > pass. What for? Sure, documentation needs to be fixed, but *not* in direction you suggested in that patch. Why would you want to force that "switch to locked on the second pass" policy on every possible caller?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists