Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Let me add to the chorus of voices: I continually see two cases where
> real bugs crop up:
>
> 1) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() in incorrect context (where it is not
> safe to do a blind enable/disable)
>
> 2) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() correctly, but the surrounding code
> changes, thus invalidating prior assumptions.
>
> I would even go so far as to support the drastic measure of deleting
> spin_lock_irq().
>
> spin_lock_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by
> virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.
Could we add a debug option that warned if spin_lock_irq is
executed with IRQs turned off already?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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]
