netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bnx2x: Fix statistics locking scheme

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: <20150313.155147.274140101234642831.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ariel.Elior@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bnx2x: Fix statistics locking scheme

From: Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:02:36 +0000

>> This is terrible.
> 
>> Either you use locking to protect critical sections, or you don't.
> 
>> I do not want to see any code that enters the critical
>> section when the locked state cannot be acquired.
> 
> I've no real objection to re-spinning this, 
> given that it's an error flow we've never actually encountered.
> 
> Do notice that this doesn't change existing behavior of code.

I disagree.

The existing code took the spinlock unconditionally, and only
executed the critical section under the lock.

This exact place is where you are adding the semaphore timeout
stuff I am specifically objecting too.
--
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