netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 2/2] 3c59x: Use fine-grained locks for MII and windowed register access

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: <20100628.231812.35040625.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Cc:	ben@...adent.org.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	chase.douglas@...onical.com, nordmark@...h.kth.se
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 2/2] 3c59x: Use fine-grained locks for MII
 and windowed register access

From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:24:47 +0200

> These locks are not needed, why you want to have them arround?

Steffen I think you are being overly picky of Ben's changes.

I'd rather have too much locking during device probe and
initialization than a subtle bug that occurs because later on someone
decides to move IRQ enabling earlier in the chip init path and now
we get strange hangs that take forever to diagnose.

I mean, extra locking in probe/init paths... ugh, there are so many
more important things to worry about!

Once Ben posts a new version of this second patch with the
proper spin_lock_init() calls added I am going to apply both
of his changes.
--
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