netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] spinlock: split out debugging check from spin_lock

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:	Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:51:20 +0200
From:	Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	g@...lslaptop.think-freely.org,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] spinlock: split out debugging check from spin_lock_mutex

On Thursday 11 April 2013 13:04:05 Neil Horman wrote:
> I dont believe the deadlock you describe can happen.  The spin_lock_mutex
> operation disables irqs on the local cpu with local_irq_save, so we won't
> loose the cpu while we're holding the spinlock.  Likewise we don't restore
> the irq flags until after we release said lock.  Once we have the mutex, if
> we're preempted by another path that goes through the netpoll_poll_dev
> path, then we hit the trylock api call.  The spinlock is either released or
> held on another cpu (read: no deadlock), and if the mutex is held, then the
> trylock simply fails.

Thanks for explaining this to me. I was looking for a local_bh_disable() - but 
local_irq_save does the job too.


Thanks,
Christoph

-- 
IP Networking Lab --- http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be
MultiPath TCP in the Linux Kernel --- http://multipath-tcp.org
UCLouvain
--
--
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