netdev - Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait

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, 29 Jan 2013 15:31:16 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	greearb@...delatech.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?

From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:24:19 -0800

> On 01/29/2013 12:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:00 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> I think there was a proposal to change it to
>>> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>>> some time ago, but that change never made it upstream (at least not in
>>> 3.7.5)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>
>> Honestly we should fix the bug at this point, not hide it.
>>
>> We could use msleep(2500) to make sure people will complain ;)
> 
> Well, few will notice that either, or at least are unlikely
> to know what to blame.
> 
> If we should just never reach that code, maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE() when
> we do?

If you only notice some time in the future that something has hung in
this state, the original message could be lost.  Therefore, I
definitely prefer that this thing keeps barking into the logs
periodically.
--
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