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  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:	Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:46:22 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Florian Lohoff <flo@...822.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	ipw3945-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, yi.zhu@...el.com,
	Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>
Subject: Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: ifconfig/0x00000002/4170

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:22 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-)
> an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu()
> must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ...

Right. But I'm thinking that since all list manipulations are done under
RTNL we only need to protect against removing things from the list while
the RX or TX path is using it, so only it would have to use it under
rcu_read_lock() [which it already takes due to key management] so we
could get rid of that sub_if_lock completely. There is one issue with
this I know about and that is the management skb queue but I'll have to
take a closer look.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists