linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/7] mac80211: Add check for napi handle before WARN

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:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:40:21 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Rakesh Pillai <pillair@...eaurora.org>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvalo@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org, evgreen@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/7] mac80211: Add check for napi handle before WARN_ON

On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 21:49 +0530, Rakesh Pillai wrote:

> We do have the usage of napi_gro_receive and netif_receive_skb in mac80211.
>                 /* deliver to local stack */
>                 if (rx->napi)
>                         napi_gro_receive(rx->napi, skb);
>                 else
>                         netif_receive_skb(skb);
> 
> 
> Also all the rx_handlers are called under the " rx->local->rx_path_lock" lock.
> Is the BH disable still required ?

I tend to think so, but you're welcome to show that it's not. The lock
serves a different purpose.

TBH, I don't have all of this in my head at all times either, so please
do your own work and analyse why it may or may not be necessary. But
without any such analysis I'm not going to take patches that change it.

johannes