netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] atm: solos-pci: Fix potential deadlock on &cli_queue

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: <CAAo+4rUE=+9Kp8CvMH3w15dJotkX03h=5YMV+hu-YSobkwj1NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2023 23:58:36 +0800
From: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: 3chas3@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, horms@...nel.org, 
	linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] atm: solos-pci: Fix potential deadlock on &cli_queue_lock

Hi Jakub,

> and irqsave here. I think you're right that it's just softirq (== bh)
> that may deadlock, so no need to take the irqsave() version in process
> context.

Yes, spin_lock_bh() is enough.

I just found spin_lock_irqsave() is more frequently used in this file, so I
also used spin_lock_irqsave() here for uniformity consideration at that time.

Should I send a new patch series to change this to spin_lock_bh()? That's
better for performance consideration.

Thanks,
Chengfeng