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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1189512106.4231.6.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:01:46 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc5: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
On Tue, 2007-11-09 at 10:18 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jamal, it's the police_lock that we need to make _bh. The
> ingress_lock is already _bh because of the spin_lock_bh that
> directly precedes it.
>
> Oh and I think the same thing applies for the other actions
> too.
ga-Dang. Ok, here it is. If you see(?) any more farts let me know.
I am around for another 30 minutes and off for about 18 hours.
Christian, i took your config and qos setup but I cant reproduce the
issue - i think i may need some of that wireless setup to recreate. So
if you can test this and validate it works we can push it forward.
cheers,
jamal
View attachment "act_bhl" of type "text/plain" (2206 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists