netdev - Re: mutex WARNING while running ip from iproute2 package

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: <20080423.202050.255399231.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kaber@...sh.net
Cc:	denys@...p.net.lb, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mutex WARNING while running ip from iproute2 package

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:12:14 +0200

> Sure. This seems to be the bogus ASSERT_RTNL warning caused
> by mutex_trylock() while holding a spinlock. The warning
> itself is harmless, since we're already holding the RTNL,
> mutex_trylock won't succeed.

I'm sorry, I had forgotten about this. :-/

> Herbert suggested to store address updates in atomic context
> on a temporary list and do the actual update in process
> context. This seems like a good idea to simplify the address
> list locking, unfortunately I didn't manage to take care of
> this yet. An alternative fix to silent the bogus warning would
> be to use mutex_is_locked in ASSERT_RTNL, but Herbert didn't
> like that idea.

I think we need something like the latter in any event.

--
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