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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:06:41 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	Andrew Morton <>
CC:	Herbert Xu <>,
	David Miller <>,
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

Andrew Morton wrote, On 12/15/2007 11:48 AM:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0800 Herbert Xu <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me.
>> I was relying on
>> which seems to be a bogus claim now that I actually look at the
>> source code.  So in that case I'm OK with your patch as long as
>> it warns about hard IRQ usage.
> When Eric said
>> 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.
> I think he's still right.  That's if the warning which he managed to find
> even still exists.

It seemed to exist a few days ago:

Btw., I don't know which of the patches: Eric's or yours will be chosen,
but, IMHO, there is no reason to remove rtnl_trylock(), which can be still
useful, just like mutex_trylock() is.

Jarek P.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists