netdev - Re: [BUGFIX PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: Check rtnl_lock is locked when removing interface

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: <20160816112713.7fd25da28d3737aa7b72d2a2@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:27:13 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:	Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
	Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
	Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@...adcom.com>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" 
	<brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: Check rtnl_lock is locked when
 removing interface

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:44:05 +0200
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 15-8-2016 13:52, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > On 15 August 2016 at 12:57, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: a63b09872c1d ("brcmfmac: delete interface directly in code that sent fw request")
> >>> Acked-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> >>>
> >>> Kalle: I'm acking this as bugfix for 4.8 release.
> >>
> >> Ok. I'll wait few days for more comments before I apply this.

Thanks!

> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > 
> >> (I assume you are talking only about patch 1)
> > 
> > Yes, I'll leave mutex vs. spinlock to the experts :)
> 
> Don't know who the experts are. Surely not me :-p
> 
> I made an uneducated design decision using a mutex for this. The
> reasoning for using a regular spinlock make sense. So I will go and ack
> that patch.

As far as I can see, that change is very local and
at least my environment it works well :)

Regards,

> 
> Regards,
> Arend


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>