On 3/11/06, Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> if (slot->slots[i]) {
> >>- results[nr_found++] = slot->slots[i];
> >>+ results[nr_found++] = &slot->slots[i];
> >> if (nr_found == max_items)
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >
> >
> > A quick clarification - Shouldn't accesses to slot->slots[i] above be
> > protected using rcu_derefence()?
> >
>
> I think we're safe here -- this is the _address_ of the pointer.
> However, when dereferencing this address in _gang_lookup,
> I think we do need rcu_dereference indeed.
>
Yes, I saw the address operator, but we still derefence "slots" to get
the address.
> Note that _gang_lookup_slot doesn't do this for us, however --
> the caller must do that when dereferencing the pointer to the
> item (eg. see page_cache_get_speculative in 2/3).
Oh! I did not get that far. Will look at the rest of the series
>
> That said, I'm not 100% sure I have the rcu memory barriers in
> the right places (well I'm sure I don't, given the _gang_lookup
> bug you exposed!).
Hmm... Let me look at rcu_torture module and see if I can figure it
out or read the documentation again.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
Warm Regards,
Balbir
-
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]
