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: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:15:01 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: stefani@...bold.net Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDPCP Communication Protocol Le vendredi 31 décembre 2010 à 10:29 +0100, stefani@...bold.net a écrit : > + spin_lock_irqsave(&spinlock, flags); > + udpcp_stat.txMsgs++; > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&spinlock, flags); This is really ugly for different reasons : 1) Naming a lock, even static "spinlock" is ugly. 2) Using a lock for stats is not necessary, and disabling hard irqs is not necessary either (spinlock_bh() would be more than enough) At a very minimum, you should use atomic_t so that no lock is needed 3) Network stack widely use MIB per_cpu counters. As you use UDP, you could take a look at UDP_INC_STATS_BH()/ UDP_INC_STATS_USER() implementation for an example. -- 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