netdev - Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif

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: <20080801074132.GA5158@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:41:32 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...eo.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	Larry.Finger@...inger.net, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
	__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:01:46AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:01:50 +0000
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 06:48:10AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 05:29:32AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > ...
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > > > index 63d6bcd..69320a5 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > > > @@ -4200,6 +4200,7 @@ static void netdev_init_queues(struct net_device *dev)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	netdev_init_one_queue(dev, &dev->rx_queue, NULL);
> > > >  	netdev_for_each_tx_queue(dev, netdev_init_one_queue, NULL);
> > > > +	spin_lock_init(&dev->tx_global_lock);
> > > 
> > > This will probably need some lockdep annotations similar to
> > > _xmit_lock.
> > 
> > ...BTW, we probably could also consider some optimization here: the
> > xmit_lock of the first queue could be treated as special, and only
> > the owner could do such a freezing. This would save changes of
> > functionality to non mq devices. On the other hand, it would need
> > remembering about this special treatment (so, eg. a separate lockdep
> > initialization than all the others).
> 
> I think special casing the zero's queue's lock is a bad idea.
> Having a real top-level synchronizer is a powerful tool and
> we could use it for other things.

Sure, if there is really no problem with lockdep here, there is no
need for this at all.

Thanks for the explanations,
Jarek P.
--
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