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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:28:39 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Dmitry Kozlov <xeb@...l.ru> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PPTP: PPP over IPv4 (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) Le mercredi 18 août 2010 à 17:16 +0400, Dmitry Kozlov a écrit : > > Hmm. You left a synchronize_rcu() call in add_chan() but this is not > > necessary. Please remove it or explain why you think it is needed. > > > > synchronize_rcu(); in del_chan() is now fine, thanks. > > > > > > You use a mutex for gre_proto_lock, but you dont need a mutex, please > > use a spinlock like I suggested. I would have said 'use a mutex' if if > > was needed, you can trust me. > > ok > > > A mutex is needed if you can sleep while holding the lock, this is not > > the case here. A spinlock is faster and reduces to no-op on !SMP > > then i have to replace mutex on spinlock in pptp module too ? > Yes indeed, you can use a spinlock there too ;) > > Also, please remove the synchronize_rcu() call from gre_add_protocol() : > > It is not needed at all, like in add_chan(). > > > > (You dont have to wait for a RCU grace period when adding something, > > only when removing from a data structure) > > ok, seems like i don't fully understand rcu mechanism... > no problem, I dont fully understand rcu myself you know :) > Thanks for reply. > -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists