linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree

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:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 04:59:19 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> I see, we have no more lockless API for IDA anymore :-(. In our case,
> we were already protected by the the nfnl_lock mutex, which it was
> sufficient to ensure non-concurrent access to IDA structures.

You're actually the first user for whom this is true.  For every other
user, the requirement to manage their own spinlock was a pain.

> Unless I'm missing anything, the new API forces use to the spinlock
> call with disabled irq for each time we update something from the
> netfilter netlink interface, so that's a no-go for us.

I can't believe that's a serious problem for you, though.  You're calling
sscanf(), this can't possibly be a performance path.