On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 06:55:33PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
> 
> In the section 'ACCESSING ANOTHER TASK'S CREDENTIALS', the file
> Documentation/credentials.txt says:
> 
> > A function need not get RCU read lock to use __task_cred() if it is holding a
> > spinlock at the time as this implicitly holds the RCU read lock.
> 
> AIUI, that is not actually right any more, is it?  A spinlock does not
> suffice as it does not necessarily imply an RCU read-side critical section
> (anymore).  Of course the spinlock specifically protecting updates would
> suffice, but that's not what this is saying.
> 
> Am I way off base?

You are absolutely correct, good catch!!!

Now, a spinlock still does imply an RCU read-side critical section given
the following configuration options:

o	!CONFIG_PREEMPT

o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TREE_RCU

o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TINY_RCU

However, relying on this is usually bad practice, as such code is prone
to failure given the following configuration options:

o	CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU

o	CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (given the -rt patchset)

And when I get my act together and complete CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU,
then CONFIG_PREEMPT && CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU will also invalidate
the assumption that holding a spinlock acts as an RCU read-side
critical section.

Did you want to submit a patch for this?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/