lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: possible deadlock in cma_netdev_callback
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:21:21PM +0000, Bernard Metzler 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...

AFAIK a wild card bind using BIND DEVICE works just fine?

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-27 17:47    [W:0.183 / U:3.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site