On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:31:36PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:59:22 +0100,
> > Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 08:57:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Any options I missed?
> > >>
> > >> Stop using the notifier chains from NMI context - it's too hard. Use a
> > >> fixed-size array in the NMI code instead.
> > >
> > >Or just don't unregister. That is what I did for the debug notifiers.
> >
> > Unregister is not the only problem. Chain traversal races with
> > register as well.
>
> Either it follows the old next or the new next. Both are valid.
> The only problem is that there isn't a write barrier between
>
> n->next = *list;
> *list=n;
>
> in notifier_chain_register, which might hit on non i386 architectures.
Coding as follows:
n->next = *list;
rcu_assign_pointer(*list, n);
will provide memory barriers as needed, even if you are never removing
elements.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
