netdev - Re: [Bug 9542] BUG: bad unlock balance detected!

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:52 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	olel@....pl, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug 9542] BUG: bad unlock balance detected!

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:14PM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > events/0/9 just changed the state of lock:
> >  (&mc->mca_lock){-+..}, at: [<c0412602>] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x130/0x1fb
> > but this lock took another, soft-read-irq-unsafe lock in the past:
> >  (&bond->lock){-.--}
> > 
> > and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.

Yes this is a bug in the bonding driver.

It's assuming that bond->lock is only ever held for writing in
process context.  Unfortunately our current set_multicast_list
interface violates this constraint.

Now I do have a TODO item to fix set_multicast_list to not do
that, but until that happens, bond->lock should always turn BH
off, even on read lock.

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