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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:28:34 +0000 From: Justin He <Justin.He@....com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> CC: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.pkin@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>, "GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com" <GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nd <nd@....com>, Shai Malin <malin1024@...il.com>, Shai Malin <smalin@...vell.com>, Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@...vell.com>, nd <nd@....com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: fix possible unpaired spin_{un}lock_bh in _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union() > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 5:06 PM > To: Justin He <Justin.He@....com> > Cc: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.pkin@...il.com>; David S. Miller > <davem@...emloft.net>; Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>; GR-everest-linux- > l2@...vell.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux- > kernel@...r.kernel.org>; nd <nd@....com>; Shai Malin <malin1024@...il.com>; > Shai Malin <smalin@...vell.com>; Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@...vell.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] qed: fix possible unpaired spin_{un}lock_bh in > _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union() > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:02:26 +0000, Justin He wrote: > > > > For instance: > > > > _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union() > > > > In while loop > > > > spin_lock_bh() > > > > qed_mcp_has_pending_cmd() (assume false), will break the loop > > > > > > I agree till here. > > > > > > > if (cnt >= max_retries) { > > > > ... > > > > return -EAGAIN; <-- here returns -EAGAIN without invoking bh > unlock > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Because of break, cnt has not been increased. > > > - cnt is still less than max_retries. > > > - if (cnt >= max_retries) will not be *true*, leading to > spin_unlock_bh(). > > > Hence pairing completed. > > > > Sorry, indeed. Let me check other possibilities. > > @David S. Miller Sorry for the inconvenience, could you please revert it > > in netdev tree? > > Please submit a revert patch with the conclusions from the discussion > included in the commit message. Okay,will do that Thanks for the reminder -- Cheers, Justin (Jia He)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists