Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 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?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
unsubscribe notice
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/