netdev - Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API

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: <20090417110703.781f8a0e@hskinnemoen-d830>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:07:03 +0200
From:	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	michael@...e-electrons.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API

David Miller wrote:
> And in response to this Haavard explained the potential deadlock
> (sorry I deleted that email) and suggested to use local_irq_save()
> 
> But that won't work either, because it doesn't prevent the interrupt
> handler from running on other cpus, it only prevents that on the
> local cpu.

The interrupt handler takes bp->lock. Isn't that sufficient to prevent
it from running on other cpus?

If you do local_irq_save() around the interrupt handler, the end result
will be identical to spin_lock_irqsave(), which is what the other
(non-interrupt) parts of the driver use.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Haavard
--
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