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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:38:24 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <>
To: David Howells <>
Cc: Marc Dionne <>,
	Alexander Viro <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Jakub Kicinski <>, Paolo Abeni <>,
	Chuck Lever <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
 than read_seqbegin_or_lock()

On 11/01, David Howells wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
> > Just none of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry/done_seqretry
> > helpers make any sense in this code.
> I disagree.  I think in at least a couple of cases I do want a locked second
> path

Sorry for confusion. I never said that the 2nd locked pass makes no sense.

My only point is that rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu() (and more) use
read_seqbegin_or_lock() incorrectly. They can use read_seqbegin() and this
won't change the current behaviour.

So lets change these users first? Then we can discuss the possible changes
in include/linux/seqlock.h and (perhaps) update the users which actually
want the locking on the 2nd pass.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists