Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Herbert Xu wrote:
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?

Seems reasonable but perhaps arch-specific?

Also, I think someone (akpm?) mentioned an effort had been made before, and run into some problems. I don't have details...

	Jeff



-
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]
  Powered by Linux