lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:05:39 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: shemminger@...tta.com Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, kaber@...sh.net, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:01:11 -0700 > The counters are the bigger problem, otherwise we could just free table > info via rcu. Do we really have to support: replace where the counter > values coming out to user space are always exactly accurate, or is it > allowed to replace a rule and maybe lose some counter ticks (worst case > NCPU-1). I say this case doesn't matter until someone can prove that it's any different from the IPTABLES replace operation system call executing a few microseconds earlier or later. There really is no difference, and we're making complexity out of nothing just to ensure something which isn't actually guarenteed right now. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists