netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: usbnet: fix softirq storm on suspend

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:05:45 +0200
From:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: usbnet: fix softirq storm on suspend

Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> writes:

> And I do believe the code before your change demonstrated that the
> original authors had the same view.  There was an explicit exception for
> just this case, and I do assume that was put there for a good
> reason. usbnet_bh() will be called while the device is suspended, and we
> must avoid making it reschedule itself in this case.
>
> Anyway, the ENOLINK test was there.  You removed it with no explanation
> whatsoever. It is *your* call to verify and explain to us why this test
> is unnecessary, not mine.

For your convienience, all the reasons why this code ended up like it
was are documented in the netdev patchwork:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/59488/

There were different proposed solutions circulating, before the test for
ENOLINK was chosen.  No-one challenged the fact that some test for a
suspended device was needed here.


Bjørn
--
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