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: <m1hckyf4ag.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:23:35 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtnl: Simplify ASSERT_RTNL

Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:57:31AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> There was a practical suggestion by Herbert that ASSERT_RTNL have a
>> might_sleep() added.  That suggestion will currently result in
>> ASSERT_RTNL firing unnecessarily from the macvlan_open code path.
>
> As I've already said we should change the macvlan and core
> netdev code so that this doesn't happen in the first place.

Agreed.  Until that is done I am reluctant to add a warning
to ASSERT_RTNL.  Last I looked at that part of the thread
it looked like you and Patrick were making good progress
towards unraveling that, so I have no problem adding
an extra warning when we don't expect it to ever trigger.

> In gernal checking for the RTNL while holding a spin lock is
> a sign of a bug.
>
> So I would object to a patch that caused the RTNL_ASSERT to not
> warn about being called in an atomic context.

ASSERT_RTNL does not warn about being called in an atomic context
today!

> I don't have a problem with your patch per se, it's the fact
> that the patch is removing the warning when it's called in an
> atomic context that I don't like.

No my patch does not remove a warning.

Way way deep in mutex debugging on the slowpath there is a unreadable
and incomprehensible WARN_ON in muxtex_trylock that will trigger if
you have 10 tons of debugging turned on, and you are in,
interrupt context, and you manage to hit the slow path.  I think that
is a pretty unlikely scenario.

Eric
-
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