linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 May 2018 20:51:32 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@....samsung.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use
 lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-05-04 20:32:49 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> > > 
> > > The warning in ieee802154_rx() and ieee80211_rx_napi() is there to ensure
> > > the softirq context for the subsequent netif_receive_skb() call. 
> > 
> > That's not in fact what it does though; so while that might indeed be
> > the intent that's not what it does.
> 
> It was introduced in commit d20ef63d3246 ("mac80211: document
> ieee80211_rx() context requirement"):
> 
>     mac80211: document ieee80211_rx() context requirement
>     
>     ieee80211_rx() must be called with softirqs disabled

softirqs disabled, ack that is exactly what it checks.

But afaict the assertion you introduced tests that we are _in_ softirq
context, which is not the same.