lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> 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 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: 2007-10-24 04:15    [W:0.074 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site