netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration

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: <20081005065648.GA13113@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:56:48 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dlezcano@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 08:55:10AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > -	/* Not safe to do outside the semaphore.  We must not return
> > -	 * until all unregister events invoked by the local processor
> > -	 * have been completed (either by this todo run, or one on
> > -	 * another cpu).
> > -	 */
> 
> I think, it's about not to let others run this for devices unregistered
> within later rtnl_locks before completing previous tasks. So, it would
> be nice to have some comment why it's not necessary anymore.

Where did you get that idea?

This was there because people did (and still do) stuff like:

unregister_netdev(dev);
free_netdev(dev);

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