From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756988AbcHDI2i (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 04:28:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:36217 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754184AbcHDI23 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 04:28:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1470299302.13693.13.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] bpf, security: Add Checmate From: Eric Dumazet To: zhuyj Cc: Sargun Dhillon , LKML , alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:28:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20160804071140.GA19121@ircssh.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Please do not top post On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:08 +0800, zhuyj wrote: > +void register_checmate_prog_ops(void); > maybe it is extern void register_checmate_prog_ops(void);? > > + preempt_disable(); > + rcu_read_lock(); > IMHO, it is not necessary to use the above 2 since rcu_read_lock will > call preempt_disable. You might double check if this claim is true if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y