netdev - Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs. dev

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:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	jarkao2@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs.
 dev_deactivate() race

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:16:34 +1000

> Actually, why do we even keep a netdev_queue pointer in a qdisc?
> A given qdisc can be used by multiple queues (which is why the
> lock was moved into the qdisc in the first place).
> 
> How about keeping a pointer directly to the root qdisc plus a
> pointer to the netdev (which seems to be the only other use for
> qdisc->dev_queue)? That way there won't be any confusion as to
> whether we want the sleeping or non-sleeping qdisc.

Not a bad idea at all.

The reason it's there is a left-over from earlier designs of my
multiqueue stuff, I thought we'd always multiplex the qdiscs to be
per-queue.  But once Patrick showed me we couldn't do that, we now
have shared qdiscs.

If I get a chance I'll work on this.  But to be honest given
Linus's temperment right now we're only going to be able to
merge one-liners to fix these kinds of problems and anything
more serious is going to be for net-next-2.6 only.
--
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