linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/flex_proportions.c: Remove local_irq_ops in fprop_new

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:50:42 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     wuchi <wuchi.zero@...il.com>
Cc:     jack@...e.cz, hch@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/flex_proportions.c: Remove local_irq_ops in
 fprop_new_period()

On Mon 06-06-22 09:44:44, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 04-06-22 21:15:02, wuchi wrote:
> > The commit <e78d4833c03e28> (lib: Fix possible deadlock in flexible
> > proportion code) adds the local_irq_ops because percpu_counter_{sum
> > |add} ops'lock can cause deadlock by interrupts. Now percpu_counter
> > _{sum|add} ops use raw_spin_(un)lock_irq*, so revert the commit and
> > resolve the conflict.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: wuchi <wuchi.zero@...il.com>
> 
> Yes, good point. Thanks for cleaning this up. Feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> I guess Andrew will pickup this patch, or should I do it Andrew?

Oh, I can see Andrew already did pickup the patch. So everything is fine
:).
								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR