linux-kernel - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:36:10 -0500
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> cookie_hash() runs in a non preemptable context. CPU cannot change under us.
> 
> (or else, we would not use __get_cpu_var(ipv4_cookie_scratch); )
> 
> And of course, each cpu gets its own scratch area, thanks to __get_cpu_var()
> 
Interesting.  I'm not sure that running CPU intensive functions like SHA1 in
a non-preemptable context is a good idea.  I'd assumed it wasn't!

Perhaps you could point at the documentation in the code that explains this?
Perhaps a function header comment that mentions it?

All I know is (from testing) that the tcp_minisockets.c caller is sometimes
called in a fashion that requires atomic allocation, and other times does not!

See my "Subject: query: tcpdump versus atomic?" thread from Oct 14th.
--
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/