On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:11:41AM -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Omar Sandoval <[email protected]> wrote: > > A naked read of the value of an RCU pointer isn't safe. Put the whole > > access in > > an RCU critical section, not just the pointer dereference. > > > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]> > > You can use rcu_access_pointer() in the if() condition check rather > than increasing the read critical section. We should try to keep the > critical section as small as possible. > > Also, since we have rcu_str_deref() we can use that instead of > rcu_dereference() on device->name. Thoughts? > That's right, I forgot about rcu_access_pointer. The difference is probably negligible, and I doubt the performance of this ioctl is very important. Since we're going to be dereferencing the pointer anyways in some (most?) cases, I think this is a bit more readable.
-- Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
