From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 30 00:37:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376ED37B401; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de [193.174.154.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F76343FAF; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:37:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de) Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100])h3U7bkE04123; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:37:46 +0200 (MEST) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:37:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt To: Nate Lawson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030430093448.U31027@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Warner Losh cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:37:54 -0000 On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: NL>On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Warner Losh wrote: NL>> 2) Call FXP_UNLOCK() before calling bus_teardown_intr to avoid NL>> a possible deadlock reported by jhb. NL> NL>This adds a race since fxp_intr could occur after the unlock but before NL>the bus_teardown_intr call. The reason why I tore down the intr while NL>holding the lock is so fxp_intr would be prevented from accessing the NL>device until it has been disabled. Then the normal checks in fxp_intr NL>(IFF_OACTIVE or whatever) would show the card is gone and return without NL>accessing it. I guess this is ok since ether_ifdetach is still called NL>with the lock held (since it is what clears IFF_OACTIVE) but I'm NL>interested in your thoughts. For what I know, you should not call ether_ifdetach with the card lock held. ether_ifdetach calls if_detach which in turn may lock the radix node head to remove routes. The lock order should be 1) radix node head, 2) interface not the other way around. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org