lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: possible deadlock in cma_netdev_callback
-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: -----

>To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@zurich.ibm.com>
>From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>
>Date: 02/27/2020 04:53PM
>Cc: "syzbot" <syzbot+55de90ab5f44172b0c90@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
>chuck.lever@oracle.com, dledford@redhat.com, leon@kernel.org,
>linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
>netdev@vger.kernel.org, parav@mellanox.com,
>syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, willy@infradead.org
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: possible deadlock in cma_netdev_callback
>
>On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:11:13AM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
>
>> Thanks for letting me know! Hmm, we cannot use RCU locks since
>> we potentially sleep. One solution would be to create a list
>> of matching interfaces while under lock, unlock and use that
>> list for calling siw_listen_address() (which may sleep),
>> right...?
>
>Why do you need to iterate over addresses anyhow? Shouldn't the
>listen
>just be done with the address the user gave and a BIND DEVICE to the
>device siw is connected to?

The user may give a wildcard local address, so we'd have
to bind to all addresses of that device...

Best,
Bernard.

>
>Also that loop in siw_create looks wrong to me
>
>Jason
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-27 17:23    [W:0.082 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site