linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] usb: libusual: locking cleanup

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]

Message-Id: <20071222233733.3a4e94b0.zaitcev@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:37:33 -0800
From:	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mer.net,
	jonathan@...masters.org, matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com,
	kjwinchester@...il.com, zaitcev@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] usb: libusual: locking cleanup

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:01:50 -0800, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:

> Then in usu_probe_thread() your basically stopping it at the start of
> the function with a down(), and the up() is just ancillary .. So you
> could easily move the up() further down in the function and still have
> the same level of exclusion.. 

The unfortunate complication here is request_module. I didn't want to
keep a semaphore locked across it, in case child waits for something.
I wonder if there may be some deadlock that we cannot foresee.
But I guess it won't hurt to try.

I tested the patch and it seems to work ok.

-- Pete
--
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/