linux-kernel - Re: lockdep false positive? -- firewire-core transaction timer vs. scsi-core host lock

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:	Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:09:43 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
CC:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep false positive? -- firewire-core transaction timer vs.
 scsi-core host lock

Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> firewire: core: do not use del_timer_sync() in interrupt context
> 
> Because we might be in interrupt context, replace del_timer_sync() with
> del_timer().

Again, is the term "interrupt contexts" meant to include softIRQ contexts?

(Nothing in firewire-core/-sbp2/-net etc. is called in hardware
interrupts.  BTW, we actually could and maybe should change all the
spinlocks in them from spin_lock_irq to spin_lock_bh.  Only
firewire-ohci's local ohci->lock needs to be IRQ safe.  OTOH this could
change if somebody comes up with a migration of the stack to threaded
IRQ handling.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- =--- =--=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/