netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] be2net: disable bh with spin_lock in be_process

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: <CA+FuTSf27jFNn-4c+05y3WTkOkMbygriVcHXX-Lg_cUky1k4Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:03:53 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>
Cc:     sathya.perla@...adcom.com, ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com,
        sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] be2net: disable bh with spin_lock in be_process_mcc

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:24 AM Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org> wrote:
>
> be_process_mcc() is invoked in 3 different places and
> always with BHs disabled except the be_poll function
> but since it's invoked from softirq with BHs
> disabled it won't hurt.

This describes the current state. What is the benefit of removing the
local_bh_disable/local_bh_enable pair from one caller (be_worker), but
not another (be_mcc_wait_compl) and then convert process_mcc to
disable bh itself with spin_lock_bh?