netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1][PKT_CLS] Avoid multiple tree locks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kaber@...sh.net
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][PKT_CLS] Avoid multiple tree locks

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0100

> jamal wrote:
> > The mutex is certainly a cleaner approach;
> > and a lot of the RCU protection would go away. I like it.
> 
> Not as much as I initially thought, but at least we would have
> consistent locking for the dump callbacks.
> 
> > Knowing you i sense theres something clever in there that i am 
> > missing. I dont see how you could get rid of the tree locking
> > since we need to protect against the data path still, no?
> > Or are you looking at that as a separate effort?
> 
> We can remove qdisc_tree_lock since with this patch all changes
> and all tree walking happen under the RTNL. We still need to keep
> dev->queue_lock for the data path.
> 
> I'll update the patches to include all rtnetlink users and repost
> in a day or two.

The existing weird "first SKB only" locking is unintuitive to
me as well, so I'm all for these mutex patches once you respin
them FWIW.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html