lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Notifier chains are unsafe
Date
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 22:40, Alan Stern wrote:
l> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Andreas Kleen wrote:
>
> > > Note that the RCU documentation says RCU critical sections are not
> > > allowed
> > > to sleep.
> >
> > In this case it would be ok.
>
> I don't understand. If it's okay for an RCU critical section to sleep in
> this case, why wouldn't it be okay always? What's special here?
>
> Aren't there requirements about critical sections finishing on the same
> CPU as they started on?


Like I wrote earlier: as long as the notifier doesn't unregister itself
the critical RCU section for the list walk is only a small part of notifier_call_chain.
It's basically a stable anchor in the list that won't change.

The only change needed would be to make these parts unpreemptable and of course
add a RCU step during unregistration.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-26 23:46    [W:0.106 / U:23.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site