netdev - Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs. dev

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: <20080821071634.GA1269@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:16:34 +1000
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs. dev_deactivate() race

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 06:49:41AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> We need to check if something depends on &noop_qdisc returned in the
> similar state. Otherwise, there is a bit too much possibilities here,
> so it would be nice to simplify this all.

Actually, why do we even keep a netdev_queue pointer in a qdisc?
A given qdisc can be used by multiple queues (which is why the
lock was moved into the qdisc in the first place).

How about keeping a pointer directly to the root qdisc plus a
pointer to the netdev (which seems to be the only other use for
qdisc->dev_queue)? That way there won't be any confusion as to
whether we want the sleeping or non-sleeping qdisc.

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