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  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]
Date:	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
 avahi-daemon: caller is netif_rx

From: Changli Gao <>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:47:26 +0800

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:37 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
>> From: Changli Gao <>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:30:44 +0800
>>> Should netif_rx() be used only when preemption is disabled? If not,
>>> netif_rx_ni() should be used instead.?
>> netif_rx() must be invoked from a hardware or software interrupt,
>> which implies preemption disabled.
>> In netif_rx_ni(), the "ni" means "not interrupt".
> yea, I know netif_rx_ni()'s meaning. It means that the following
> changes aren't necessary.
>  #else
> -       cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +       ret = enqueue_to_backlog(skb, get_cpu());
> +       put_cpu();

Why?  If we are in an interrupt (either soft or hard) then
smp_processor_id() is stable, and valid.

Changli, I find it very frustrating to communicate with you, you are
very terse in your descriptions and analysis and you make many simple
errors that would be avoided if you spent more time thinking about
things before sending your emails. :-/

Instead of just showing some pseudo patch, state WHY it is needed.
Talk about the execution state of environment and what rules or other
things are being violated which must be corrected.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists