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: <20231101222946.GF32034@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:29:46 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "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() sorry for noise, but in case I wasn't clear... On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 11/01, David Howells wrote: > > > > However, I think just changing all of these to always-lockless isn't > > necessarily the most optimal way. > > Yes, but so far I am trying to change the users which never take the > lock for writing, so this patch doesn't change the current behaviour. > > > I wonder if struct seqlock would make more sense with an rwlock rather than a > > spinlock. As it is, it does an exclusive spinlock for the readpath which is > > kind of overkill. > > Heh. Please see > > [PATCH 4/5] seqlock: introduce read_seqcount_begin_or_lock() and friends > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913155005.GA26252@redhat.com/ > I meant, we already have seqcount_rwlock_t, but currently you can't do something like read_seqbegin_or_lock(&seqcount_rwlock_t). > I am going to return to this later. Yes. Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists