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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231004170120.1c80b3b4@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:01:20 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@...il.com> Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:26:25 +0000 Chengfeng Ye wrote: > I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable > bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under > softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable > by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot > find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following > deadlocks. > > tcf_gate_act() > --> spin_loc(&gact->tcf_lock) > <interrupt> > --> gate_timer_func() > --> spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock) This is a TC action, I don't think it can run without BH being already disabled, can it? -- pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists