linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: lpfc: spin_lock

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 07:56:29 -0700
From:   James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@...adcom.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: lpfc: spin_lock_irq() is not nestable

On 6/30/2017 1:02 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We're calling spin_lock_irq() multiple times, the problem is that on the
> first spin_unlock_irq() then we will re-enable IRQs and we don't want
> that.
>
> Fixes: 966bb5b71196 ("scsi: lpfc: Break up IO ctx list into a separate get and put list")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>

looks good.

Signed-off-By: James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>