netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration

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:	Sun, 5 Oct 2008 09:12:38 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dlezcano@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:56:48PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 08:55:10AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > > -	/* Not safe to do outside the semaphore.  We must not return
> > > -	 * until all unregister events invoked by the local processor
> > > -	 * have been completed (either by this todo run, or one on
> > > -	 * another cpu).
> > > -	 */
> > 
> > I think, it's about not to let others run this for devices unregistered
> > within later rtnl_locks before completing previous tasks. So, it would
> > be nice to have some comment why it's not necessary anymore.
> 
> Where did you get that idea?

Just reading this code (plus the comment). Why would anybody bother 
with something so complex like this if something like your idea is
rather straightforward? But, needed or not, my point is it would be
nice to comment that this patch changes this behavior btw.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html