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: <20231101224855.GJ1957730@ZenIV> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 22:48:55 +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 10:52:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Why would you want to force that "switch to locked on the second pass" policy > > on every possible caller? > > Because this is what (I think) read_seqbegin_or_lock() is supposed to do. > It should take the lock for writing if the lockless access failed. At least > according to the documentation. Not really - it's literally seqbegin or lock, depending upon what the caller tells it... IMO the mistake in docs is the insistence on using do-while loop for its users. Take a look at d_walk() and try to shoehorn that into your variant. Especially the D_WALK_NORETRY handling...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists