linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning

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: <CACjP9X-Oj2DFKY0bopMGTEAr1bShM4E+6TtskA+8Ym-bnAfnQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:08:12 +0100
From:   Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:09:13PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please fill some text in commit message.
> > >
> > > Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
> >
> > Oh, sorry. I did not mention it but there's no particular reason
> > really. The @Subject says it all. There should be no logical or
> > functional change other than reducing the span of that critical
> > section. In other words, just nitpicking, not a big deal.
> >
> > While checking the code (and past changes) related to the other issue
> > I also sent today I just noticed the way 08bc327629cbd added the
> > spin_lock before returning from this function and it appeared to me
> > it's clearer the way I'm proposing here.
> >
> > Honestly, I was not looking into why the lock is released for that
> > completion. And I'm not changing that logic.
> >
> > If this complete() can be called with priv->lock held, the cleanup
> > would look different, of course.
>
> complete() can be called under spinlocks just fine, AFAIK..

Yup, agreed. We ended up removing the lock completely in this function
with the other patch. This patch can be discarded.

--nX

> Jason
>