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:	Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:32:31 +0300
From:	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	afleming@...escale.com, jason.wessel@...driver.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gianfar: Make polling safe with IRQs disabled

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 01:05:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
...
> > When using KGDBoE, gianfar driver spits 'Interrupt problem' messages,
> > which appears to be a legitimate warning, i.e. we may end up calling
> > netif_receive_skb() or vlan_hwaccel_receive_skb() with IRQs disabled.
> > 
> > This patch reworks the RX path so that if netpoll is enabled (the
> > only case when the driver don't know from what context the polling
> > may be called), we check whether IRQs are disabled, and if so we
> > fall back to safe variants of skb receiving functions.
> 
> This is bogus, I'll tell you why.
> 
> When you go into netif_receive_skb() we have a special check,
> "if (netpoll_receive_skb(..." that takes care of all of the
> details concerning doing a ->poll() from IRQ disabled context
> via netpoll.
> 
> So this code you're adding should not be necessary.
> 
> Or, explain to me why no other driver needs special logic in their
> ->poll() handler like this and does not run into any kinds of netpoll
> problems :-)

Hm, I was confused by the following note:

/**
 *      netif_receive_skb - process receive buffer from network
 *      @skb: buffer to process
...
 *      This function may only be called from softirq context and interrupts
 *      should be enabled.


Looking into the code though, I can indeed see that there
are netpoll checks, and __netpoll_rx() is actually called with
irqs disabled. So, in the end it appears that we should just
remove the 'Interrupt problem' message.


Thanks!

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists