netdev - Re: [PATCH] rtnl: Simplify ASSERT

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: <E1IbTz0-0000FK-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:31:14 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtnl: Simplify ASSERT_RTNL

Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> 
> Currently we have the call path:
> macvlan_open -> dev_unicast_add -> __dev_set_rx_mode ->
>        __dev_set_promiscuity -> ASSERT_RTNL -> mutex_trylock
> 
> When mutex debugging is on taking a mutex complains if we are not
> allowed to sleep.  At that point we have called netif_tx_lock_bh
> so we are clearly not allowed to sleep.  Arguably this is not a
> problem for mutex_trylock.

Actually holding the TX lock here is a bug.  We're going to
call down into the hardware with __dev_set_promiscuity, which
may sleep (think USB NICs), so we definitely shouldn't be holding
any spin locks.

Patrick, could we avoid taking the TX lock here somehow?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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