linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ne.c msleep not mdelay

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: <20080830.233647.05599714.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date:	Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:36:47 +0900 (JST)
From:	Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>
To:	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Cc:	david@...es.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	p_gortmaker@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ne.c msleep not mdelay

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:59:06 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > mdelay(10) replaced by msleep(10) to give up the CPU, it's just
> > waiting for an interrupt, so timing isn't critical.
> 
> It is too critical for a reschedule to occur.
> 
> NAK this one.

There are already some msleep() in probe_irq_on() which is called just
before here.  And this part is not protected by any spinlock or
preempt_disable.

So, if rescheduling was dangerous here, we already have potential
problems, no?

---
Atsushi Nemoto
--
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/