From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU without constructors (was Re: [PATCH v4 13/17] khwasan: add hooks implementation) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <01000164f169bc6b-c73a8353-d7d9-47ec-a782-90aadcb86bfb-000000@email.amazonses.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andrey Ryabinin , "Theodore Ts'o" , jack@suse.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Jozsef Kadlecsik , Florian Westphal , David Miller , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev , Gerrit Renker , dccp@vger.kernel.org, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com, joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com, rodrigo.vivi@intel.com, airlied@linux.ie, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , To: Dmitry Vyukov Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > Is it OK to overwrite ct->status? It seems that are some read and > writes to it right after atomic_inc_not_zero. If it is after a (successful) atomic_inc_not_zero(), the object is guaranteed to be alive (not freed or about to be freed). About readind/writing a specific field, all traditional locking rules apply. For TCP socket, we would generally grab the socket lock before reading/writing various fields. ct->status seems to be manipulated with set_bit() and clear_bit() which are SMP safe.