netdev - Re: [GIT]: Networking

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: <4A793284.8000401@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:19:32 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
>> FYI, -tip testing found that these bits trigger a missing lockdep 
>> annotation warning:
> 
> it's apparently using an zero-initialized spinlock. This is a 
> side-effect of:
> 
>         dev_unicast_init(dev);
> 
> in alloc_netdev_mq() making use of dev->addr_list_lock.
> 
> Wouldnt the patch below be the right fix? The device has just been 
> allocated freshly, it's not accessible anywhere yet so no locking is 
> needed at all - in fact it's wrong to lock it here (the lock isnt 
> initialized yet).
> 
> This bug was apparently introduced via:
> 
> | commit a6ac65db2329e7685299666f5f7b6093c7b0f3a0
> | Author: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
> | Date:   Thu Jul 30 01:06:12 2009 +0000
> |
> |     net: restore the original spinlock to protect unicast list
> 
> it needlessly added new locking and apparently nobody ran this patch 
> with lockdep.
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> Index: linux2/net/core/dev.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux2.orig/net/core/dev.c
> +++ linux2/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -4007,9 +4007,7 @@ static void dev_unicast_flush(struct net
>  
>  static void dev_unicast_init(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
> -	netif_addr_lock_bh(dev);
>  	__hw_addr_init(&dev->uc);
> -	netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev);
>  }
>  
>  


Indeed, this function is static and thus only called from alloc_netdev_mq()

--
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