netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in hp100_login_to_vg

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, 14 Dec 2017 11:56:59 +0800
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     perex@...ex.cz, floeff@...hematik.uni-stuttgart.de,
        acme@...ectiva.com.br, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in
 hp100_login_to_vg_hub

Sorry,

I think I know your meaning now.

Maybe we can unlock the spinlock before "schedule_timeout_interruptible" 
and then lock again?
Like:
     spin_unlock(...);
     schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
     spin_lock(...);


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai


On 2017/12/14 11:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:13:15 +0800
>
>> Thanks for reply :)
>> I think I should use "udelay(100000/HZ)" instead, do you think it is
>> right?
> The delay is too long, please do not ignore that part of my critique
> of your change.
>
> You cannot delay so long under a lock, that's why the code is trying
> to use a sleeping delay.
>
> I'm not going to explain this problem another time.