netdev - Re: lockdep warning

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802221757130.30955@jikos.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:01:33 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@...tmail.fm>, davem@...emloft.net
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep warning 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote:

> > > Any chance that
> > > 	git revert 69cc64d8d92
> > > makes this report go away?  
> I've tested the patch and I no longer get that lock thing in my syslog.

Thanks for verification.

Hmm, I don't immediately see how this patch could make neigh->lock owner 
to change between lock and unlock ... I have skimmed through the solicit 
methods, and they don't seem to be doing anything nasty to neigh ...

The scenario I was thinking about is that before 69cc64d8d92, if any of 
the _solicit methods could do anything bad to neigh struct, this warning 
wouldn't trigger, because the lock has been dropped before calling 
_solicit() and reacquired later, so no mismatch on ->current could happen, 
but now as long as the lock is held during _solicit() call, this would 
trigger on the next unlock.

But I am not able to see anything like that in the code. Dave, do you have 
any idea? (the thread started at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/105).

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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