Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751321AbdFARnq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:46 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:33286 "EHLO mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbdFARnn (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_attr_interfmode_store To: Jonathan Corbet , Jia-Ju Bai Cc: kvalo@codeaurora.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1496226547-5921-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@163.com> <85905124-7167-aeb0-8aff-4ceec09e9542@lwfinger.net> <592F6843.9000204@163.com> <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> From: Larry Finger Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:43:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1170 Lines: 26 On 06/01/2017 11:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800 > Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > >> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs. >> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :) > > May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a > dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a > piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is > protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that, > the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high. > > It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make > the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would > recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are > finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer > a strong explanation of why your fix is correct. > > Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel! I agree with the suggestion above. Locking changes should only be done in conjunction with testing by someone that actually has the hardware. Larry