linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in hp100_login_to_vg

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7f4ce19c-7173-2163-f213-b9d57a398cc1@gmx.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:13:37 +0100
From:   Siegfried Loeffler <siegfried.loeffler@....net>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     perex@...ex.cz, floeff@...hematik.uni-stuttgart.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in
 hp100_login_to_vg_hub

I am sorry, I still have some of these 100VGAnyLan boards somewhere in 
the attic but I am unable to test.
I haven't used 100VGAnyLan for the last 20 years ! :-) - I wonder if 
anybody is still using it?

Cheers
Siegfried Loeffler, DG1SEK

On 14.12.17 04:56, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I think I know your meaning now.
>
> Maybe we can unlock the spinlock before 
> "schedule_timeout_interruptible" and then lock again?
> Like:
>     spin_unlock(...);
>     schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
>     spin_lock(...);
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jia-Ju Bai
>
>
> On 2017/12/14 11:34, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:13:15 +0800
>>
>>> Thanks for reply :)
>>> I think I should use "udelay(100000/HZ)" instead, do you think it is
>>> right?
>> The delay is too long, please do not ignore that part of my critique
>> of your change.
>>
>> You cannot delay so long under a lock, that's why the code is trying
>> to use a sleeping delay.
>>
>> I'm not going to explain this problem another time.
>
>