netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mac80211: make max_network

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, 9 Jun 2010 12:20:50 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	james.bottomley@...e.de, markgross@...gnar.org,
	mgross@...ux.intel.com,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Javier Cardona <javier@...ybit.com>, Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>,
	Rui Paulo <rpaulo@...il.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@...ia.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mac80211: make max_network_latency notifier
 atomic safe

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:38:07 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 11:15 +0200, florian@...kler.org wrote:
> > In order to have the pm_qos framework be callable from interrupt
> > context, all listeners have to also be callable in that context.
> 
> That makes no sense at all. Why add work structs _everywhere_ in the
> callees and make the API harder to use and easy to get wrong completely,
> instead of just adding a single work struct that will be queued from the
> caller and dealing with the locking complexity etc. just once.
> 
> johannes

Just to defend this approach, but I'm certainly not married to it
(hence RFC):

There are only two listeners at the moment. I suspect that most future
uses of the framework need to be atomic, as the driver that
requests a specific quality of service probably doesn't want to get into
races with the provider of that service(listener). So i suspected the
network listener to be the special case.  

The race between service-provider and qos-requester for non-atomic
contextes is already there, isn't it? so, locking complexity shouldn't
be worse than before.

But my first approach to this is seen here:
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-June/026902.html

A third possibility would be to make it dependent on the
type of the constraint, if blocking notifiers are allowed or not. 
But that would sacrifice API consistency (update_request for one
constraint is allowed to be called in interrupt context and
update_request for another would be not).

Cheers,
Flo
--
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