linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place

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:	Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:03:16 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	roger.larsson@...atan.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, rml@...h9.net, pavel@....cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:18:50 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> > file:  include/net/sock.h
> >
> >    static inline gfp_t gfp_any(void)
> >    {
> >      return in_atomic() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL;
> >    }
> 
> That's typically for softirq vs non softirq, which is important
> for the network stack.
> 

There's a bit of a problem here.  If someone accidentally uses
gfp_any() inside a spinlock, it will do a sleeping allocation on
non-preempt kernels and will do an atomic allocation on preemptible
kernels, so we won't get to see the warning which would allow us to fix
the bug.

Would using irq_count() work?  If so, that would fix this up.
--
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/