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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:38:49 +0400
From:	Alexander Smirnov <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ieee802154: sparse warnings: make symbols static

Hi Eric,

just a several questions:

>> >
>> > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(flist_lock);
>> and of course commit 768f7c7c121e80f4 (6lowpan: add missing
>> spin_lock_init() ) must be reverted.

Do I need to create 2 separate patches: one for revert and second to
initialize spinlock correctly, or I can combine these changes in one

> You should validate this code with LOCKDEP

Nothing was shown by LOCKDEP for 6lowpan. :-(

I've selected the following options:

-*- Spinlock and rw-lock debugging: basic checks
-*- Mutex debugging: basic checks
-*- Lock debugging: detect incorrect freeing of live locks
[*] Lock usage statistics
[*] Lock dependency engine debugging

> lowpan_dellink() does a spin_lock(&flist_lock);
> while same lock can be taken by lowpan_fragment_timer_expired() from
> timer irq, -> deadlock.

What would be the best way to solve this context mismatch? Can I do
something like following:
1. create some 6lowpan internal workqueue
2. replace lowpan_fragment_timer_expired() body by queue_work() with
current list_deleting routine
3. when 6lowpan is going to be deleted - I'll flush the queue and
remove all the timers and respective fragments

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