From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netconsole: fix NULL pointer dereference Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:22:27 +0200 Message-ID: <52696563.1060507@redhat.com> References: <1382533489-19248-1-git-send-email-nikolay@redhat.com> <20131024102147.GD16787@redhat.com> <20131024.135614.1725589105857635534.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, vfalico@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52066 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752724Ab3JXSWd (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:22:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131024.135614.1725589105857635534.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/24/2013 07:56 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: "David Laight" > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:39:02 +0100 > >>>> Taking the spinlock seems like the cleanest way to insure there's noone >>>> running in parallel, but I'm open to suggestions as I'm not satisfied with >>>> the looks of this. I'll prepare a net-next patchset for netconsole soon to >>>> clean it up properly, all of these can be easily simplified. >>> >>> First when I've seen 'spin_lock(); a = 1; spin_unlock()' I've thought >>> "WTF?", however indeed it will stop us racing with write_msg(). >> >> Ditto - might be worth saying: >> /* Acquire lock to wait for any write_msg() to complete. */ > > Something this subtle definitely requires a comment. > Okay, thank you all for the reviews. I will re-submit a v2 with the comment edited. Nik