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  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, 13 Apr 2011 04:32:07 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	Shaohua Li <>
Cc:	lkml <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	"" <>, "" <>
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists