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  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]
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 22:50:02 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     William McVicker <>,,
        Marek Szyprowski <>,
        Kalle Valo <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,,
        Amitkumar Karwar <>,
        Xinming Hu <>,,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Subject: Re: [BUG] deadlock in nl80211_vendor_cmd

On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 14:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 
> > > The WARN_ON() you suggested up front make perfect sense to me.
> > > You can also take the definition of net_unlink_todo() out of
> > > netdevice.h while at it because o_0  
> > 
> > Heh indeed, what?
> To be clear - I just meant that it's declaring a static variable in 
> a header, so I doubt that it'll do the right thing unless it's only
> called from one compilation unit.

Right, it's odd. I just made a patch (will send in a minute) moving the
entire block to dev.c, which is the only user of any of it.

> > Ah, no. This isn't about locking in this case, it's literally about
> > ensuring that free_netdev() has been called in netdev_run_todo()?
> Yup, multiple contexts sitting independently in netdev_run_todo() and
> chewing on netdevs is slightly different. destructors of those netdevs
> could be pointing at memory of a module being unloaded.

Right, thanks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists