linux-kernel - Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?

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]

Message-ID: <20070318202910.GE11078@mellanox.co.il>
Date:	Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:29:10 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>
Subject: Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?

> > > It should be cleared and we should be sure it will not be destroyed
> > > before quiescent state.
> > 
> > I'm confused. didn't you say dst_ifdown is called after quiescent state?
> 
> Quiescent state should happen after dst->neighbour is invalidated.
> And this implies that all the users of dst->neighbour check validity
> after dereference and do not use it after quiescent state.
> 
> 
> > This does not sound like something that's likely to be accepted in 2.6.21, right?
> > 
> > Any simpler ideas?
> 
> Well, if inifiniband destructor really needs to take that lock... no.
> Right now I do not see.

OK then.
If you post some patches I'll test them.

-- 
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/