linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 1/3] slip/slcan: added locking in wakeup function

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: <523AD544.7030100@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:43:16 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
CC:	Andre Naujoks <nautsch2@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] slip/slcan: added locking in wakeup function

[ +cc Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On 09/19/2013 06:35 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 09/19/2013 12:29 PM, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>> On 19.09.2013 11:36, schrieb Marc Kleine-Budde:
>>> On 09/13/2013 07:37 PM, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>>>> The locking is needed, since the the internal buffer for the CAN
>>>> frames is changed during the wakeup call. This could cause buffer
>>>> inconsistencies under high loads, especially for the outgoing
>>>> short CAN packet skbuffs.
>>>>
>>>> The needed locks led to deadlocks before commit
>>>> "5ede52538ee2b2202d9dff5b06c33bfde421e6e4 tty: Remove extra
>>>> wakeup from pty write() path", which removed the direct callback
>>>> to the wakeup function from the tty layer.
>>>
>>> What does that mean for older kernels? (<
>>> 5ede52538ee2b2202d9dff5b06c33bfde421e6e4)
>>
>> It seems the slcan (and slip) driver is broken for older kernels. See
>> this thread for a discussion about the patch in pty.c.
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137269017002789&w=2
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>> The patch from Peter Hurley was actually already in the queue, when I
>> ran into the problem, and is now in kernel 3.12.
>>
>> Without the pty patch and slow CAN traffic, the driver works, because
>> the wakeup is called directly from the pty driver. That is also the
>> reason why there was no locking. It would just deadlock.
>>
>> When the pty driver defers the wakeup, we ran into synchronisation
>> problems (which should be fixed by the locking) and eventually into a
>> kernel panic because of a recursive loop (which should be fixed by the
>> pty.c patch).
>>
>> Maybe it is possible to get both patches back into the stable branches?
>
> Sounds reasonable. You might get in touch with Peter Hurley, if his
> patch is scheduled for stable. Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> suggests a procedure if your patch depends on others to be cherry picked.

Already following along.

I'd like to wait for 3.12 release before the pty patch goes to -stable
(so that it gets more in-the-wild testing).

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--
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/