netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled

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:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:40:47 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Kyle Lucke <klucke@...ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra Koushik <raghavendra.koushik@...erion.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:11:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
..
> > You are also changing the semantics of ASSERT_RTNL (assert *this thread* 
> > has rtnl, from the
> > old behaviour:  assert *some thread* has rtnl).  It may be better this
> > way, but it could break code that assumes the old behaviour.

If any code could assume the old behaviour it's simply
a bug (eg. doing ASSERT_RTNL two times one after
another could give different results). And it's
logically wrong to: the same process is trying to
acquire the same lock second time (pseudo recursively:
it makes difficult lock verifying eg. by lockdep). 

Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html