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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:32:07 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems Le mercredi 13 avril 2011 à 09:01 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit : > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:03 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > Hmm... did you test this with LOCKDEP on ? > > > > You add a possible deadlock here. > > > > Hint : Some percpu_counter are used from irq context. > there are some places we didn't disable interrupt, for example > percpu_counter_add. So the API isn't irq safe to me. > So what ? Callers must disable IRQ before calling percpu_counter_add(), and they actually do in network stack. Please check again, tcp_sockets_allocated for example. > > This interface assumes caller take the appropriate locking. > no comments say this, and some places we don't hold locking. > for example, meminfo_proc_show. > This doesnt answer my question about LOCKDEP ;) Just fix the few callers that might need a fix, since this is the only way to deal with potential problems without adding performance penalty (for stable trees) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists