netdev - Re: 2.6.21-rc7: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523

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]

Message-Id: <1179315904.10069.67.camel@violet>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 13:45:04 +0200
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, maxk@...lcomm.com,
	bluez-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc7: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
	at net/core/sock.c:1523

Hi Satayam,

> > > (later)
> > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > -     lock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > +     local_bh_disable();
> > > +     bh_lock_sock_nested(sock->sk);
> > >       rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid);
> > > -     release_sock(sock->sk);
> > > +     bh_unlock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > +     local_bh_enable();
> > > Is it _really_ *this* simple?
> > [...]
> > actually this *seems* to be proper solution also for our case, thanks for
> > pointing this out. I will think about it once again, do some more tests
> > with this locking scheme, and will let you know.
> 
> Yes, I can almost confirm that this (open-coding of spin_lock_bh,
> effectively) is the proper solution (Rusty's unreliable guide to
> kernel-locking needs to be next to every developer's keyboard :-)
> I also came across this idiom in other places in the networking code
> so it seems to be pretty much the standard way. I wish I owned
> bluetooth hardware, could've tested this for you myself.

does this mean we should revert previous changes to the locking or only
apply this on top of it?

Regards

Marcel


-
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