Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751377AbVLNFqY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:46:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751378AbVLNFqY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:46:24 -0500 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.192]:487 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751377AbVLNFqX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:46:23 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FP/hHldrlXmjmQ/2Fc2GxCd9Hmp2eAWHs6c7xKFFqMsVHCqy/HS5R7VR0zHkygMi2I66scHXRAIoC0zE1Q0zAjfOgcoAXNTCHxqt/Nz6mI2eTMnKDgAQzdXL2Dv1hMsEDLxOT5/T8wNmGMK8KEdvpU/XBj/f4fJml6HKg3q9f/c= Message-ID: <81083a450512132146g1177b457q5fd6cc5685a3d3b3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:16:21 +0530 From: Ashutosh Naik To: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour Cc: Jesper Juhl , anandhkrishnan@yahoo.co.in, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rth@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, Greg KH , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk In-Reply-To: <1134525816.30383.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <81083a450512120439h69ccf938m12301985458ea69f@mail.gmail.com> <1134424878.22036.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81083a450512130626x417d86c9w31f300555c99fdb2@mail.gmail.com> <9a8748490512130849o73c14313l166e6dd360f32d70@mail.gmail.com> <1134525816.30383.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 721 Lines: 17 On 12/14/05, Rusty Russell wrote: > We already do this to resolve (more) symbols, so I don't see it as a > problem. However, I believe that lock is redundant here: we need both > locks to write the list, but either is sufficient for reading, and we > already hold the sem. Was just wondering, in that case, if we really need the spinlock in resolve_symbol() function, where there exists a spinlock around the __find_symbol() function Cheers Ashutosh - 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/