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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:05:36 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] bnx2x: Fix statistics locking scheme

>> 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.

I can't really see why we should look at the existing spinlock critical
section as if that's the more important one, given that the surrounding
logic is broken, i.e., that a context switch between the spinlock release
and the action() taking place might result in the state machine no
longer truthfully representing the actual HW/FW configuration.

Regardless, you've made your disdain for this... well, more than obvious.
And since I can't really justify this behaviour, I think I'll simply re-spin it. 
--
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