netdev - Re: [PATCH] Fix deadlock between boomerang_interrupt and boomerang_start

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, 23 Aug 2010 22:48:58 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix deadlock between boomerang_interrupt and
 boomerang_start_tx in 3c59x

Le lundi 23 août 2010 à 16:24 -0400, Neil Horman a écrit :

> 
> Faster I agree with, although I'm not sure if speed is really a big issue here,
> given that this is a ancient (but fairly well used) 10/100 adapter.  And we
> still have space in the octet that that bitfield is living in, so I figured I'd
> use that anyway.
> 
> As for safe, I'm not sure I follow you on that point.  Is there something
> inherently dangerous about using a bitfield in this case?
> 

A bitfield is not SMP safe.

Are you sure another cpu is not changing another bit, using a non atomic
RMW sequence, and your bit change is lost ?

Quite tricky to check I suppose, so just add an "int" ;)



--
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