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: <20231014072943.GV29570@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 09:29:43 +0200 From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> To: Edward AD <twuufnxlz@...il.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, johannes@...solutions.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, syzbot+509238e523e032442b80@...kaller.appspotmail.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: fix deadlock in rfkill_send_events On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 10:43:22AM +0800, Edward AD wrote: > Hi Simon Horman, > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:06:38 +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > I am wondering if you considered moving the rfkill_sync() calls > > to before &data->mtx is taken, to avoid the need to drop and > > retake it? > If you move rfkill_sync() before calling &data->mtx, more code will be added > because rfkill_sync() is in the loop body. Maybe that is true. And maybe that is a good argument for not taking the approach that I suggested. But I do think it is simpler from a locking perspective, and that has some merit. > > > > Perhaps it doesn't work for some reason (compile tested only!). > > But this does seem somehow cleaner for me. > BR, > edward >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists