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  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:   Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:37:39 -0800
From:   "" <>
To:     Yanjun Zhu <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rds: ib: replace spin_lock_irq with spin_lock_irqsave

On 3/11/17 6:33 PM, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
> Sorry. I have no test case to show some issue.
> But from Linux Kernel Development Second Edition by Robert Love.
Yes I know the book and what the API does :D

> Use spin_lock_irq is dangerous since spin_unlock_irq unconditionally
> enables interrupts.
> We can assume the following scenario:
> --->the interrupt is disabled.
>         spin_lock_irq(lock_ptr);   <---this will disable interrupt again
>         list_del(&ic->ib_node);
>         spin_unlock_irq(lock_ptr); <---this will enable interrupt
> ---->the interrupt is enabled.
> our code change the state of interrupt. This will make potential risk.
> But spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore will not make potential risk.
ic is well protected for any possible race and hence I asked
if you had any test case. Please re-post the series again with
the subject patch dropper for Dave to pick it up.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists