From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 19 16:18:53 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C34D459D0 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70BF71AFF for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v3JGIrXp046718 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:53 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 218597] [CRYPTODEV] spurious wakeup and synchronisation problem Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:53 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jhb@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:53 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D218597 --- Comment #7 from John Baldwin --- (In reply to Alexandre martins from comment #5) Well, hmm. If the uio is in the csession than perhaps we should just forma= lize "only one op at a time" by having the crypto ioctls detect that case and ei= ther fail or block. Alternatively we could move the uio into the 'cod'. Probab= ly it is simpler to just enforce "one op at a time" and then your original pat= ch should work I think. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=