netdev - Re: [PATCH] bond_alb: do not disable BH under netpoll

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: <20120104.132510.1521809723158602749.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:25:10 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	maxim.uvarov@...cle.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bond_alb: do not disable BH under netpoll

From: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:14:39 -0800

> On 03.01.2012 18:49, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Maxim Uvarov<maxim.uvarov@...cle.com>
>> Date: Tue,  3 Jan 2012 18:20:18 -0800
>>
>>> Do not disable BH if interrupts are already disabled
>>> (netpoll case).
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov<maxim.uvarov@...cle.com>
>> Barf...
>>
>> We should never use conditional locking like this.
> 
> 
> How about change spin_lock_bh  to spin_lock_irqsave at this place?

Then it's ambiguous whether it's a softirq safe lock or a hardirq
safe one.

It's just another way to make the locking inconsistent.
--
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