linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] softirq: weaken warning in local_bh_enable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130619221125.GA10834@logfs.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:11:25 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	David Ellingsworth <david@...ntd.dyndns.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softirq: weaken warning in local_bh_enable_ip()

On Wed, 19 June 2013 12:27:37 -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> No the warning is correct, the SCSI target code needs to be fixed. You
> cannot call spin_unlock_bh with interrupts disabled.

That sounds like something coverity could be taught with reasonable
effort - if someone from them is listening.  Not sure if sparse has
enough context to do the same.

Just to play thick and make things ultra-clear, you say the following
pattern is never legal, correct?

spin_lock_irq(save)
...
spin_lock_bh
...
spin_unlock_bh
...
spin_unlock_irq(restore)

> So fix the code, don't weaken the warning.

Will do.

Jörn

--
The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.
-- John Powell
--
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/