netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: Do not try to send packets over dead link in TLB mode.

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]

Date:	Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:52:40 -0700
From:	Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
Cc:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Maciej Zenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: Do not try to send packets over dead link in TLB mode.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> +
>>> +    spin_lock(&bond_info->slave_arr_lock);
>>
>> I don't think you can re-enter bond_alb_handle_link_change(), as it's
>> protected either by rtnl or write-lock curr_active_slave.
>>
> Actually a very good catch :-)
> Maybe the allocation above should be done with GFP_ATOMIC.
>
Actually I did try relying on RTNL but looks like in miimon path the
RTNL is not held and RTNL_ASSERT failed. But I do see that
curr_active_slave lock is held but not sure if that is always the
case. So it does make sense to change the alloc to use GFP_ATOMIC in
this case.
[...]
--
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