netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] cnic: Don't take cnic_dev_lock in cnic_alloc_uio

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: <1401741114.6344.2.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:31:54 -0700
From:	Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>
To:	Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>
CC:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cnic: Don't take cnic_dev_lock in
 cnic_alloc_uio_rings()

On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 15:33 -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote: 
> On 2014/05/30 16:18, Michael Chan wrote:
> > We are allocating memory with GFP_KERNEL under spinlock.  Since this is
> > the only call manipulating the cnic_udev_list and it is always under
> > rtnl_lock, cnic_dev_lock can be safely removed.
> 
> In that case, the many other instances of cnic_dev_lock throughout cnic
> should also be removed, no? 

I don't think so.  cnic_dev_list still needs to be protected using
cnic_dev_lock.  cnic_register_driver() for example is not called with
rtnl_lock().

--
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