linux-kernel - Re: softirq oops from b44

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: <CAJfGthTb8PJXNq3gP_NPxTLQQNuVM600oF5Qx7cW-ykGe4n9gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:16:48 +0100
From:	Xander Hover <lkml@...er.be>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: softirq oops from b44_poll

Indeed will the in_irq() test will force dev_kfree_skb_any() to call
dev_kfree_skb_irq().
The kernel warning before this patch was applied, was also trigged by
a WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq()).
I think David is right on this one.


On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:17:33 -0800
>
>> I suspect the "right" way to fix this is to call dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
>> instead, since that will handle the in-interrupt case if that's where
>> we're stuck.
>
> Caller is always b44_poll(), and that caller always does spin_lock_irqsave().
>
> Adding the extra tests implied by dev_kfree_skb_any() therefore doesn't
> make any sense, as it will always evaluate to dev_kfree_skb_irq().
>
--
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/