netdev - Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: avahi-daemon: caller is netif

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, 15 Apr 2010 02:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, eparis@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
 avahi-daemon: caller is netif_rx

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:49:18 +0200

> Maybe we should add a new function after all...
> 
> int netif_rx_any(struct sk_buff *skb) 
> {
>        if (in_interrupt())
>                return netif_rx(skb);
> 
> 	return netif_rx_ni(skb);
> }

Ok, thanks for the analysis.

Since we keep coming back to this issue why don't we simply
solve it forever?  Let's make netif_rx() work in all contexts
and get rid of netif_rx_ni().

I think this is the thing to do because this whole netif_rx_ni()
vs. netif_rx() thing was meant to be an optimization of sorts (this
goes back to like 8+ years ago :-), and really I doubt it really
matters on that level any more.

What do you think?
--
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