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:	Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	jarkao2@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs.
 dev_deactivate() race

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:27:58 -0700

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 06:22:59PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > And then there are all of these complicated pieces of state the
> > classful qdiscs modify when a SKB is removed from their visibility.
> > So, the unlink isn't just a simple list delete operation.  There
> > are queue lengths that need to be updated, watchdog timers to
> > manage, etc.
> 
> The decision really comes down to whether it's harder to requeue
> a seemingly arbitrary packet or whether it's harder to dequeue the
> packet that was last peeked.

My current opinion is that both operations are equally difficult.
With the slight advantage for ->requeue() because all the complicated
logic is already implemented :-)
--
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