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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090417.020841.21679845.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com
Cc:	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	michael@...e-electrons.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API

From: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:07:03 +0200

> 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?

We don't necessarily hold bp->lock here, we could be called from
the netpoll code.  Another cpu could easily hold bp->lock and be
in the middle of the interrupt handler.

--
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